
































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































* 













































































AREA OP HARBOR ABOVE THE CASTLE. 
26t)4 A cres covered, by water at law tide ■ 

2745 ,, fiats bare, at low tide. 

2 755 Marsh, covered Tty water at hioh. tide. 
m2 a cres covered with water at high. tide. 

EXFIvUTA TI02TS. 

_ ovipxnal shore. 

marshes. 

_ low ureter line 

line of ester ocu'hmenSs now autihurrisecL. 


DB (D 2S m M !J3 Y a 


Xith.qf Sweft ti Powers. 


JJa.th.oma 

~sh —Tfe — di ‘ Ar— tit W lit fin —it. 


Statute Miles 























































APPLICATION 


OF 

JOHN C. TUCKER AND OTHERS 

FOR A 

Charter for fjje 35%tir Hitter Hail Hnab, 

TO RUN FROM THE BOSTON AND MAINE RAIL ROAD 

ACROSS 

CIIELSEA BRIDGE OVER THE FLATS TO DEEP WATER, 

PETITION 


FREDERIC J. WILLIAMS AND OTHERS 

' FOR A 

#rmrf nf Britt tor tn fill up m Sims nf tjjr (Ennxmnmurnltlj’s /lots 


IN 

MYSTIC RIVER ABOVE AND BELOW CHELSEA BRIDGE. 


1/ 

]/Vt£v^ 



Joint Legislative Committee on Mercantile Affairs and Insurance, 


MONDAY, APRIL 17, 1851. 


SJIjonoflrapiRc Report Du 23r. James EffiL Stone. 

> 



BOSTON: 

J. M. HEWES & CO., 81 CORNHILL. 

1851 . 





TCaw 


HON. BENJAMIN SEAVER, Chairman of Committee. 


William Dehon, for the Mystic River Railroad Petitioners . 

Richard H. Dana, Jr., for the Petitioners for Flats. 

William Whiting, 

Thomas Russell, 


| for the Remonstrants. 


JUN f 3 



a is-iw 




SPEECH. 


Gentlemen, 

The pressure of your engagements will require us to 
proceed at once, notwithstanding the absetfce of some 
members of this Committee. You will he glad to learn 
that the evidence is closed, although we have not pro¬ 
duced certain witnesses whose names have been stated, 
because you are already so familiar with the subject 
under consideration. 

There are two distinct questions to he answered ; one 
relating to the Railroad Bill,—the other to the petition 
for leave to fill up a portion of the flats of Mystic River, 
lying above and below Chelsea Bridge. 

As to the former, you are to inquire whether the Bill 
as reported by the Committee on Railroads ought to pass ? 
Should you be of the opinion that the Bill as reported 
ought not to pass, the question may still be open, 
wdiether any project similar to this ought to be favored. 
In regard to filling the flats, the great question is, 
whether those flats can be filled ivithout injury to the har¬ 
bor , or the wharf property surrounding it ? 


4 


These being the questions, permit us to inquire, Who 
are the petitioners who come here to ask not only for a 
charter but a donation of land from the Commonwealth ? 
Are they merchants desiring additional accommodations 
for the commerce of Boston ? Are they persons engaged 
in manufactures ? Are they persons engaged in any op¬ 
erations which require changes or enlargements in the 
business facilities, or requiring better access to bold 
water ? If they are, then the petition they have brought 
before you may be favorably considered, and, if no dam¬ 
age be done, may be granted. But if, on the other 
hand, they are not persons concerned in the commerce of 
this place, or in what may be called the business of Bos¬ 
ton and Charlestown, if it should turn out that they are 
merely an association of land speculators, I think their 
claims would stand on different grounds. And we do 
not feel much hesitation in saying to what class we sup¬ 
pose the petitioners belong. 

We will ask your attention to the fact that there are 
two separate sets of persons who are petitioners. The one 
petition for a Railroad , the other petition for land. They 
appear before you in a double character ; though we 
suppose that the same general design is at the bottom of 
this scheme. They have come before you separately, 
and as though they had separate objects, for a reason 
which is believed to be not obvious. They wish to have 
two chances before the Legislature ;—one before this 
Committee, and the other before the Railroad Committee. 
And if they foil in getting the grant of the petition from 
the one, they think they may succeed with the other ; 


5 


or, as we will show presently, if they succeed in getting 
both schemes sanctioned by the Legislature, they may 
drop one scheme and carry out the other. I will ask the 
Committee to consider that the petition before this Com¬ 
mittee is in its character vague and indefinite. It re¬ 
quests the Legislature to give away as much as they will. 
They do not ask any thing definite, giving the metes 
and hounds, in order that the public may know precisely 
what the plan is ; but the supplicants come with soft 
tone and under breath and say, £t Gentlemen, give us 
about a hundred acres ; and if you cannot give us a hun¬ 
dred, pray favor us with eighty ; and if our petition for 
eighty acres is too large, then pray grant us fifty ; let 
us have all you can spare, without robbing yourself!” 
If they can have what they wish, they will obtain the 
whole. But the smallest favors will be gratefully re¬ 
ceived. They protest they do not wish to do any harm. 
But they wish to have the Legislature manufacture a 
scheme for them here , and that this Committee should 
sanction this scheme. That is the plan. Now they 
begin by making two assertions that we wish you to con¬ 
sider,—assertions which we do not consider to be well 
founded. These statements, though perhaps not intend¬ 
ed to be incorrect, yet are not in fact true. They 
tell you that none but themselves are interested in this 
subject. That is their statement. Now when there is a 
petition presented to the Legislature relating to any pub¬ 
lic work, an order of notice is usually issued to those in¬ 
terested against the project, because the Government 
wishes, before putting its hands into the pockets of any 


6 


of its citizens, to give them a chance to be heard. The 
petitioners make that first statement perhaps for the pur¬ 
pose of not waking up any opposition, in order that they 
may go slily into some Committee room and get a report 
in their favor and then slide along as smoothly before the 
Legislature, and without opposition obtain the grant of 
their petition. 

The petitioners state that they are the owners of a tract 
of land which is liable to be filled up ; and would make 
it appear before you, as the basis of their claim, that 
they have already a right to fill up down to the present 
channel. This statement has been insisted upon. We 
begin by saying to you that that assumption is not cor¬ 
rect. The petitioners are not legal owners of all the flats 
which lie in front of their lands. Only a small portion of 
those flats, viz., those situated between their lands and 
the ancient channel, down to low water mark, belong to 
them. They are the owners of flats only to the line of 
the original channel, which was distant but comparatively 
a few feet from the ends of their wharves. That erro- 
neous claim, Gentlemen, is stated by them in substance 
as one of the elements which you are to take for granted 
and which we say is not true. The effect of that error is 
to mislead. It did mislead certain persons who supposed, 
when these petitioners were asking the privilege of mak¬ 
ing a Railroad over flats of their own, that they were 
really flats of their own, and not a part of the flats of the 
Commonwealth in Mystic River. The plan of proposed 
filling, now brought forward,—and which was prepared 
for them by Lieut. Davis, if it had been known, would 


7 


have raised 500 or 5,000 remonstrants. What the pe¬ 
titioners asked in public is not what they ask here. 
They asked in public the privilege of certain flats, and 
alleged that no other persons but the petitioners were in¬ 
terested. Now they ask for a hundred acres of flats, 
most of which is the property of the Commonwealth. 

These applicants for the flats come before you with no 
better reason, in reality, than a desire that they may be 
permitted, by the Legislature, to make a grand specula¬ 
tion out of the property of the Commonwealth, and that 
you should report in favor of their project. 

Now it may be said that there are petitioners in aid of 
this project. We will tell you how it is that they are 
interested. Some of them who reside in distant towns 
on the line of the Boston and Maine Railroad are inter¬ 
ested. They are told that it will benefit them by giving 
them additional access to deep water; little knowing 
that the project will not give them a single wharf on the 
harbor. 

The city authorities of Charlestown have come forward 
and petitioned ; and we are not surprised at that. They 
are looking to their own interests. If they can get you 
to fill up any portion of this harbor within the precincts 
of that city, they will extend their lands and their busi¬ 
ness to some extent. They will put up new buildings 
and have new sources of income. Of course, therefore, 
Charlestown is in favor of this plan. 

Then there are some, like Mr. Barker, who are in fa¬ 
vor of this project. He says he shall thereby get a job of 
engineering. There are others who are in favor of it; 


% 


8 


and the reason is that they expect that they will have 
something to do, some lucrative employment growing out 
of the enterprise. 

But, Gentlemen, there are other petitioners. Some 
are from Chelsea, remonstrants as well as petitioners. 
But those from Chelsea in favor of this proposition could 
not have known what was to he the project at last, be¬ 
cause the petitioners did not and could not tell them what 
the project was finally to he. But suppose they were in 
favor of it because they thought it would he the means of 
causing Chelsea Bridge to become free from tolls, by 
making a portion of the adjoining flats into solid land. 
But the object may be accomplished better by appropri¬ 
ating the proceeds of these flats to the freeing of that 
bridge, without injuring the harbor by excluding the tide 
water. 

We must ask you to look at a Bill which you did not 
sanction, but which was reported by the second Commit¬ 
tee on Bailroads, and then ask you what is the real ob¬ 
ject of the petitioners for that Road. See what they pro¬ 
pose to have you do. This Bill reported, is entitled “An 
Act to incorporate the Mystic River Railroad ; ’ ’ and en¬ 
acts that “ J. C. Tucker, David Hamblin, P. J. Stone, and 
their associates, successors and assigns,” shall be incor¬ 
porated with all the powers and privileges, &c., to “ con¬ 
struct and maintain a Railroad, with one or more tracts, 
commencing at some convenient point on the Boston and 
Maine Railroad in Somerville, easterly of the Middlesex 
Canal and westerly of the point where the Grand Junc¬ 
tion Railroad unites with the Boston and Maine that 




9 


is, between the Grand Junction Road and the Mill Pond ; 
and thence shall come down along the margin of the 
river, crossing “ the flats between the main and south 
channels in Mystic River to Chelsea Bridge and then 
crossing the bridge on an even grade ; that they shall 
have the privilege of filling up a circle of land which 
shall extend 600 feet below the bridge ; and that they 
shall have the privilege of extending out their wharves 
in fan shape about 600 feet more, which will give an 
extent of 1200 feet from the bridge towards East Boston. 

That is their plan. And, Gentlemen, if you believe it 
after all the testimony that has been offered to you, that 

is the act which that Railroad Committee reported just 

* 

as it is, although the plan is now by the petitioner’s 
counsel in part abandoned. That bill, as we are inform¬ 
ed, was reported in the absence of the Chairman of the 
Committee on Railroads ; and we know, for I have it 
from one of the Committee, that it was reported without 
any investigation of the great question of injury to the 
harbor. 

Mr. Dehon. Do you intend to say that the Chairman 
does not approve of the bill ? 

Mr. Whiting. No ! I only mean what I said, that it 
was reported in his absence, without any investigation of 
the question of injury to the harbor. 

Next I will say that that bill was reported without 
one single provision for the protection of the harbor of 
Boston ; without one single provision by which we might 
be saved from that ruin which would necessarily follow 
the blight of our commercial prospects. There was sim- 

2 


10 


ply the Railroad project without the least regard to our 
harbor, knowing that that subject was to be disposed of 
by the present Committee. That bill does not provide 
for one foot of excavation. They have by it a right to 
fill up the flats as high as they please. They are by it 
under no obligations, express or implied, to excavate a 
single foot. There was the project of 20 acres of land 
given away without the slightest compensation to the 
harbor or to the Commonwealth. 

We would ask you to consider that in no part of this 
project do the petitioners propose (whatever may be said 
by our friends on the other side) to enter into any secu¬ 
rity, or to give any obligation to Massachusetts, that they 
will perform any thing on their part, except take the 
ground which you have to give them. 

No such grant as this has been yet made by the Legis¬ 
lature of Massachusetts. We have granted charters. 
But we have never been yet so kind as to give a com¬ 
pany of speculators a charter and at the same time to 
give them the capital stock to speculate upon. 

Such, then, Gentlemen, are the petitioners. Such is a 
general idea, as far as I can gain it, of the objects and 
designs of the petitioners. And now let me ask you, 
before I proceed to the merits of the question, who are 
the parties on the other side ? 

Who, Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, are the remon¬ 
strants ? I hold before me a list of a portion of them. 
And without taking your time in reading even a list of 
the names of these remonstrants, let me say to you that 
Mr, Robert G. Shaw and various others, the East Boston 


11 


Company, the Boston Marine Society, whose sole interest 
is to protect the harbor of Boston, the Winnissimmet 
Company, the English Steamship Company, wharf own¬ 
ers at East Boston, wharf proprietors at the South end, 
inhabitants of East Boston, of Chelsea, and of Boston 
proper, various other private gentlemen, the selectmen of 
Chelsea, and in fact nineteen different classes of remon¬ 
strants, being men of various interests, appear before 
you, by their counsel, and request that you should do 
them the justice to hear their views, their evidence, and 
their arguments. 

My friend on the other side (I know not which of two 
so very old gentlemen is the eldest, but we« trust Mr. 
Dana will pardon this somewhat unparliamentary allusion 
to him by name) took the liberty to sneer in advance at 
some of our remonstrances as being got up ; and as being 
the subjects of wire-pulling, intimating that any quantity 
of remonstrants could be obtained by such means. Now 
I am ready to concede that any quantity of remonstrants 
can be obtained in any case where they are interested. 
But we cannot tolerate any such remark in regard to the 
honorable men whose remonstrances I have presented. 
We should be forgetful of the dignity of those whom we 
represent were we to entertain other feelings than regret 
that such an insinuation should have been uttered. 

I would ask my brother, (if I must call names,) Does 
he mean to say that my client, Mr. Robert G. Shaw, Mr. 
Thos. Lamb, and others like them, are men who are to 
be procured to come before a Committee of the Legisla¬ 
ture and state what they do not believe ? They are men 


12 


whose interests are at stake, or who believe their interests 
are at stake. Are they to he made to come up here and 
say that they believe that the ruin of Boston harbor is to 
be the consequence of the grant of this petition, when 
they believe no such thing ? Is not such a charge equal 
to branding these men with an unseemly epithet ? I will 
ask if either of the gentlemen on the other side suppose 
that Mr. Lamb, who represents the Boston Marine So¬ 
ciety as president, would come up Here and take his oath 
before you of the sincerity of the apprehensions express¬ 
ed by his remonstrance unless he believes what he said ? 
Is it not going too far to suppose that these large num¬ 
bers of proprietors of wharves, of steamboats, and of 
ferries, and the numerous presidents of corporations could 
be made to say what they thought was incorrect ? I will 
not take time in arguing such a question, or in supposing 
that it could have weight with you. The remonstrants 
are interested men. I do not believe you will find a man 
among them who is not interested. Each is interested in 
the preservation of his property. They are interested in 
this as much as the petitioners are to get the property of 
the Commonwealth into their pockets. They are men 
who entertain a well grounded fear. They are men who 
have knowledge on this subject—men who have experi¬ 
ence and as qualified to guide you as any of the individ¬ 
uals who are called “men of science.” My clients are 
interested to the amount of millions of dollars in the pre¬ 
servation of the water courses of Boston harbor. 

Such, Gentlemen, is the position of the persons who 
appear before you as petitioners and remonstrants, and 


13 


who ask a hearing, a patient hearing of the evidence 
and arguments. 

I begin by stating, as matter of law, that by usage 
founded upon the colony ordinance of 1641, which in 
Massachusetts has the force of common law, the owners 
of land bounded on sea or salt water shall hold to low 
water mark, so that any one does not hold more than one 
hundred rods below high water mark ; saving the rights 
of others to convenient ways.* 

The ebb of tide, when from natural causes it ebbs 
the lowest, and not the average or common ebb, is to be 
taken as low water mark.f 

‘ £ A creek in which the sea ebbs and flows and from 
which the tide does not ebb entirely, is the boundary 
of the ownership of the flats by the riparian proprietor ; 
and his ownership is absolute as far as it extends. 

“ The rights of the riparian proprietors to flats below 
low water mark are not enlarged by reason of the filling 
up of channels in front of them.” 

The conclusion, therefore, Gentlemen, which would be 
deduced in regard to the law is this ; that if the Com¬ 
mittee are satisfied that the ancient channel of the Mystic 
River, (according to the statement of the last witness 
and Des Barres’ map,) existed as late as 1775, where it 
is proved by these witnesses to have run, then the peti- 


* See Storer v. Freeman, 6 Mass., 435 ; Barker v. Bates, 13 Pick. 255 ; 
Austin v. Carter, 1 Mass., 231 ; Commonwealth v. Charlestown, 1 P. 180, 
183-4. 

f Sparhawk v. Bullard, 1 Mitch. 95. 



14 


tioners are not the owners of the flats one inch below 
Ioav water mark of the ancient channel. So that Massa¬ 
chusetts is still the owner, and always will be so, (till she 
alienates them,) of all the flats running up near the shore, 
covering a large portion of land which is claimed as be¬ 
longing to the riparian proprietors. It is important that 
you should know the extent of the land that you may 
estimate its value, and that you may not be blinded in 
giving this away by any unfounded claim to it by the 
riparian abuttors. Whatever you do, it is important that 
you do it advisedly. 

By examining the ancient map of Des Barres, pub¬ 
lished in 1775, you will observe that the main channel of 
the Mystic River is represented as flowing near the 
Charlestown side of the flats, while a narrow creek or 
thread of water alone is shown upon the opposite side of 
these flats. 

Whether the course of the main channel has thus 
shifted over on to the Chelsea side, from the action of 
artificial causes, or otherwise, may be uncertain. But 
from the legal principles before alluded to, it would ap¬ 
pear that a large body of flats claimed by the petitioners, 
was below Ioav Avater mark in relation to the riparian 
proprietors on both sides of the river ; and therefore be¬ 
longs to the Commonwealth, notwithstanding the recent 
filling up of one of these main channels. 

This estate is of great value for various purposes. It 
may be made useful for excavations, supplying the mate¬ 
rial for filling up neighboring wharves. But it is of far 
more importance for other uses. The property of the 


State in these flats differs in no respect from its other pro¬ 
perty, although equity may require that it shall be ap¬ 
propriated to different uses. As the State is owner of 
the public buildings, or the wild lands in Maine, so is she 
owner of the land under Mystic River below low water 
mark. 

One species of property is not to be given away any 
more than the other ;—not certainly to be gratuitously 
bestowed upon a set of speculators. Neither is to be 
used, unless the public exigency requires it. 

This is, like all other property, held in trust by the 
Commonwealth. Berkshire owns it as much as Middle¬ 
sex or Suffolk. It is not the property of Boston, East 
Boston, Chelsea, or South Boston. It is the property of 
Massachusetts and should be used as such. 

We have a word to say of the market value of this 
100 acres of flats. We have shown you one man, and 
have no doubt there are in Boston one hundred men, who 
would give you $200,000 for that property. There are 
men who would give a large amount for the mere privi¬ 
lege of excavating it, and using the mud in other places. 
Wliat the value of it is, may easily be ascertained by 
showing the value of land in similar situations. Last 
evening, Mr. Lewis testified of a purchase made by him¬ 
self. There might have been testimony of other pur¬ 
chases introduced, but the Committee said they did not 
desire it. Mr. Lewis purchased flats on the rear of East 
Boston upon the creek as far up as the bridge. He says, 
that he paid for it a little over a shilling per foot. He 
bought this for the Grand Junction Railroad, with an 



16 


agreement that he would take it on his own account if 
the Grand Junction Corporation did not take it. And 
you know enough of Mr. Lewis to he aware that he is 
not a person to purchase land in that way without being 
sure that it was of value equal to the price he was to 
pay. 

Now there are twenty acres below the bridge, which it 
is proposed to take for this Railroad, which, at a shilling 
a foot, amounts to $145,200. This is at a rate or trifle 
less than Mr. Lewis paid. Would any of you doubt that 
this land, which it is proposed to take for this Railroad, 
is worth as much as land further from Boston ? If this 
land was taken at a shilling a foot, and filled up at eight 
or ten cents a foot, would it not be a speculation, a 
magnificent speculation ? The land costing a shilling a 
foot, with eight or nine cents per foot for filling up, the 
whole would amount to about twenty-five cents a foot ; 
while being below the bridge, it would be made to ex¬ 
tend to deep water, because they could excavate the flats 
in front, down to the channel, and use the mud in filling 
up. 

Take the eighty acres here asked for above the bridge, 
and at the same rate, they would amount to $580,800. 
Putting both of these sums together, they would amount 
to $726,000 ; and if you grant as much as is embraced 
in this plan, which is about 117 acres in all, at the same 
price of a shilling a foot, it would amount to nearly 
$1,000,000. Will you, then, hesitate to say that Mr. 
Lewis would be justified in giving for this land less than 
the third part as much as he has already paid for land 


17 




further off, which is to he filled up before it can be 
used ? 

# 

It is true that one of the learned counsel undertook to 
put questions to Mr. Lewis, apparently designed to em- 
barass him. We think the result was that the counsel 
himself was embarassed, when he asked him how he 
could reconcile his statement that there was no great 
emergency for wharf accommodations in the harbor of 
Boston, with his offer of $200,000 for this property. 
The counsel asked what he would do with it ? Mr. Lewis 
did not tell all that he would do with it. But there were 
many things very obvious. $200,000 for 117 acres would 
amount to about five cents per square foot. 1 will ask 
you, Gentlemen, if there be any of you who would not 
be glad to obtain those flats at five cents per foot ? 

You could fill them up at eight or ten cents per 
foot, so that when filled up they would cost little more 
than ninepence a foot. Would any one hesitate to pay 
this sum when the poorest wharf property in that neigh¬ 
borhood sells for from twenty-five to eighty-seven and a 
half cents per foot, including the flats ? This value, too, 
is independent of the other uses, besides wharfage, to 
which it might be put. 

We have no doubt that either of the learned counsel 
would be willing to purchase these flats at this price, 
provided they would do so unprofessional a thing as to 

make $300,000 or $400,000 by an operation beyond the 

♦ 

purlieus of the Court House. 

Usually the riparian proprietors ask leave to extend 
their wharves. Here they solicit an absolute grant of 

3 


18 


the fee simple, as we think, for the purpose of making 
city lots, and not for the purposes connected with navi¬ 
gation. 

The State should not sell at any price ; hut should 
hold this estate, (according to the views expressed in the 
report of the Committee on Mercantile Affairs and In¬ 
surance,) as a sacred trust for the improvement of the 
harbor in which it lies. If the State should make any 
movement about this species of property, it should be to 
increase and not to diminish its interest in the flats of the 
harbors. 

If Massachusetts means to trade away Boston Harbor, 
and let it go to destruction, certainly there is value 
enough in the flats to pay the State debt. I do not be¬ 
lieve there is a man of information upon the subject, who 
will not tell you that flats are of such value, that by sell¬ 
ing all those in Boston Harbor, the proceeds could pay 
the entire debt of the State. The consequences of such a 
sale might be, however, the ruin of the State commer¬ 
cially. 

You have, this evening, to deal with a matter involv¬ 
ing many hundred thousand dollars, which is to be de¬ 
cided by the Legislature under your advice. But the 
value of these flats is not worth a moment’s considera¬ 
tion in comparison with the consequences which would 
ensue from their sale. I beg you to consider that while 
various Committees of the Legislature have reported in fa¬ 
vor of one or another project, they have generally not made 
that comprehensive examination of the subject which its 
importance demands ; but rather they have looked as in- 


19 


diyicluals examining projects in their local hearings only. 
They have not taken those large views, and entertained 
those general considerations of the consequences of this 
course of operations, which we hope that this Committee 
w T ill take in the report they are to make to the Legis¬ 
lature. 

We have been met by the remark, that one former 
Committee has reported in favor of this project. And if 
the action of other Committees is to have weight with 
this, I beg that the objections of the remonstrants may 
be treated with so much the greater consideration. We 
know that this project has never been made known to the 
public. We speak for those whom we represent. We 
have never been aware of the nature and extent of this 
plan. If we had been, the respectable remonstrants, for 
whom we appear, would have earlier hastened to this 
Senate chamber, earnestly remonstrating against this 
project, and we think no Committee would have reported 
in favor of doing the damage which the granting of this 
petition will accomplish. 

What are the grounds on which the petitioners rest 
their claim, to have a charter and a grant of public land be¬ 
stowed upon them ? They come here claiming that there is 
some good which they may expect to accomplish. It is 
not sufficient that they are to be made rich. That is not 
enough for you or the Legislature to act on. They 
propose some plausible reasons for their request. And 
what are they ? We suppose the great want of the peo¬ 
ple they urge upon you to supply, is the want of wharf 
accommodations for the inhabitants of Charlestown. It 


20 


lias been so put forth by their able counsel. Now I wish 
to ask you if that be correct. Charlestown has no more 
claim to be accommodated than any other town. Charles¬ 
town has a Navy Yard, which has built her up, which 
she struggled hard to get, and which enables her to en¬ 
joy the benefit of that Government expenditure which is 
usually considered so desirable. She secures the residence 
of a number of officers, the construction of a large amount 
of machinery and vessels, and the distribution of a large 
amount of the money of the United States. And in con¬ 
sideration of the great benefit that that navy establish¬ 
ment was to be to the place, she volunteered to allow 
the United States a place to put their ships in after they 
are built. She ought not to complain that a large por¬ 
tion of her wharfage is given up for public purposes. 

Charlestown has no more reason to receive your bounty 
than Roxbury or any other town on the harbor. They 
each can ask to do what may not injure their neighbors. 
None can ask more. Charlestown has no better right to 
ask you to give her a portion of the public domain than 
Worcester has. But the petitioners’ claim rests entirely 
upon the question, whether such an exigency exists as 
will justify you in giving away the public domain, and 
inflicting a fatal injury on Boston Harbor ; not whether 
land speculators want more land, but whether the com¬ 
mercial interests require these wharves. May not 
Charlestown have sufficient wharf accommodation in the 
harbor without filling up any portion of it ? May or may 
not the Boston and Maine Railroad have access to suffi- 


21 


cient depot accommodation upon bold water without the 
grant of this petition ? 

We answer that there is no such public exigency. 
There is not a great demand for wharfage in Charlestown. 
It does not and never did exist. It is an exigency of 
speculators. The men of business do not ask this char¬ 
ter. They are not the men who state that there is an 
exigency. It is only the men who fill up the flats, the 
engineer who wants a job, who come forward to swear 
to the exigency. They do not produce a man here out 
of this interested circle, who undertakes to tell you that 
there is any exigency, or any great stress for wharf 
accommodations in that town. If they did so, we should 
answer to them that facts speak much louder than words. 

When a man tells you there is a great demand for 
wharfage accommodation, the first question you ask is, 
What is the value of your wharves per square foot ? The 
Chairman of this Committee knows the value of some 
wharf property,—that which he has himself recently 
owned. In that neighborhood, land is worth about twen- 
five cents a foot ; and the best wharf there, the Tudor 
wharf, used for the exportation of ice, w r as bought not 
long since for fifty cents a foot. 

Now, in Boston, we should like to know how much 
' wharf property is worth. For it is here that there is a 
real demand for wharf accommodation. Let any one try 
to purchase, and he will find that an enormous price will 
be asked, and so large, that this species of property, tak¬ 
ing the average of the whole together, will produce only 
about five per cent, on the investment. He will find 


I 


22 


that it is many dollars instead of a few coppers per square 
foot. 

What are the uses of Charlestown wharves ? They 
are only occupied for the wood and lumber business, and 
for the exportation of ice. No ! Do not believe that any 
such exigency is made out, as entitles any set of men to 
receive half a million of dollars worth of public property 
without compensation. 

Now, Gentlemen, if Charlestown people want to get 
at bold water, if that is the exigency they choose to 
state, if the Boston and Maine Railroad want twenty 
acres of land on bold water, she can have them by 
switching off from her own road to the Grand Junction 
Road, and placing depots all along the Chelsea shore to 
East Boston. And then she can have as much deep 
water accommodation as there is in Boston and Charles¬ 
town combined. She may get at as many acres of bold- 
water as she pleases, without filling up any flats or touch¬ 
ing any public property. If you have already granted 

« 

charters for bringing this Boston and Maine Railroad to 
bolder water, why should you grant another charter for 
the same purpose, entailing upon us so many formidable 
disadvantages ? 

Not only the Boston and Maine but all the other roads 
that centre in the city are, or may be, connected together 
by the Grand Junction Road. You have just granted a 
charter for that project, and it has been accomplished. 
You have permitted your fellow-citizens to invest some 
millions of dollars in carrying that enterprise into effect. 
This spring that road will be in working order. They 


are making wharves where vessels can come and receive 
goods from the cars. And we ask why you would not 
rather foster that which you have already created than 
organize another machine for the same purpose ? It is in 
vain to say that it would be further for the Boston and 
Maine Railroad to go up to the Northern shore. This 
argument you will hear directly from the other side. We 
would answer that, if it is the sole object to deliver the 
goods on board vessels, it makes no difference whether 
the cars go further to reach the vessel, or whether the 
vessel goes further to reach the cars. We all see that at 
a glance. 

We believe that the policy which this Commonwealth 
has generally followed in making public grants is, not to 
grant two charters for the same purpose, one of which 
might tend to injure the other. Now I do not imagine 
that the Grand Junction Railroad fear competition from 
the Maine Railroad. The Grand Junction Road does not 
manifest any interest in opposing this scheme. 

But you should take care , because you are the custo¬ 
diers of all these enterprises. You will not grant the 
prayer of this petition, if it is designed really to attain 
nothing more than what is already accomplished. 

Gentlemen, as to this Charlestown exigency , they have 
not felt enough of it to make them use the shore proper¬ 
ty they already possess. They have not had exigency 
enough to enhance the value of wharves already in ex¬ 
istence. They have not had exigency enough to keep 
that channel clear ; we mean the Charlestown portion of 
that channel. They have allowed many rods of it to fill 


24 


up. A great exigency that must have been, when they 
might have taken the mud from the channel and with it 
filled up the wharves, and yet have neglected both ! 

Therefore it is an opinion not founded in fact, that there 
is an exigency of Charlestown people for wharves. And 
what is more than that, it is proposed that this property 
should be used by the Maine Railroad and not by the 
Charlestown people. So that the idea that the citizens 
of Charlestown want this for the benefit of the Railroad 
is preposterous, when in another moment they say they 
want it to extend their own wharf accommodation and to 
benefit themselves. It seems to us that this is saying 
two inconsistent things in the same breath. 

We would now call your attention to some statistics 
which will show, whatever it may be pretended that 
Charlestown may want, whether the exigency really ex¬ 
ists. The frontage for wharves in Boston on all sides, 
above and below the bridges, amounts to 24,975 feet 
only ; while Charlestown has 13,170 feet, of which the 

4 

Navy Yard occupies only 2,880 feet, leaving 10,290 feet 
to be occupied by her own citizens. The population 
of Charlestown is about 16,000. Boston contains at least 
140,000 inhabitants. 16,000 will go in 140,000 nearly 
nine times. Now Charlestown has more than one-third 
as much frontage as Boston, while it has less than one- 
eighth of the population. You can judge by that fact of 
the exigency for an increase of the harbor accommoda¬ 
tions in Charlestown. 

Chelsea has frontage from Chelsea Bridge to Chelsea 
Creek 6,000 feet. East Boston contains, from Chelsea 


25 


Creek Bridge round to Dr. Jeffries’ point, a frontage of 
17,000 feet. So that there is in Chelsea and East Bos¬ 
ton alone about as much wharf frontage as there is in the 
entire extent of Boston proper. Why should we not use 
the hold water that we can use without encroaching upon 
the harbor before we undertake to create that which may 
be attended with the most disastrous results to all. The 
amount of frontage actually used in 1835 in Boston and 
Charlestown both did not exceed 15,000 feet. Now 
Charlestown has the ability to use 10,290 feet for her 
private purposes. She can appropriate two-thirds as 
much frontage by making the proper excavations as was 
used by both these cities in 1835, and one-third as much 
as Boston now has. You can bring into use double the 
frontage now used about Boston, without filling up any 
of the public property beyond the Commissioners’ lines. 
But supposing there were a want of wharfage in the south 
side of the Mystic, may not that want be supplied by 
excavation ? Have they not the water course ? May 
they not excavate that ? If they can obtain reasonable 
accommodations by clearing their own channels, it seems 
to me not fair to say that there is any exigency which it 
does not belong to them to remedy. 

But independent of this question whether Charlestown 
does or does not want wharfage, we say that the present 
commerce of Boston requires for its convenient accommoda¬ 
tion every foot of ivater area between Chelsea Bridge and 
the Commissioners’ line at East Boston ; and that we 
think we have shown you. The distance from the East 
end of Chelsea Bridge to the Commissioner’s line at East 

4 


26 


Boston is about 1,300 feet by rough measurement upon 
the map. The greatest distance from the centre of Chel¬ 
sea Bridge to the Commissioners’ line is only 1,680 feet. 
The width of channel at the end of the flats to the Com¬ 
missioners’ line at East Boston is about 870 feet. The 
width of the proposed channel would be only 480 feet 
from the ends of the proposed wharves. But indepen¬ 
dently of those wharves, imagine them to be removed, 
and imagine the filling to extend only 600 feet from the 
bridge, and I will thank my friends to state how far they 
expect to extend the filling up. 

Mr. Deiion. I should think about 700 feet. 

Mr. Whiting. I will assume this to be the true extent. 
Take it just as they put it, with 700 instead of 600 feet 
of these flats filled up, and navigation will be rendered 
extremely unsafe to the present commerce of Boston. It 
will be endangered in many ways. I will ask those of 
you who are accustomed to shipping so as to know the 
length of the lower yard arms of large vessels, who can tell 
how far they will extend into the stream when lying at 
the ends of wharves, and who know whether we make a 
fair estimate, whether each vessel would not occupy 
about 60 feet of channel ? Twice that will be 120 feet. 
That is on the supposition there is one vessel on each side 
of the channel. Take out of your 1,680 feet of present 
width the 700 feet which it is proposed to fill up. 

Mr. Deiion. I wish to state that we think that that 
channel is 2,100 feet wide. 

Mr. Whiting. We understood that it was proved to 
be 1,680 feet, I suppose your plan is to measure at 


27 


right angles with the direction of the bridge. But I am 
speaking of the shortest straight line from the centre of 
the bridge to the Commissioner’s line. In order that 
there may be no mistake, we shall leave with the Com¬ 
mittee the harbor-master’s plan, and then by simple mea¬ 
surement according to the scale there laid down, you 
will find it as we have said. We are, of course, liable to 
mistakes as others are. But 1,680 feet is what we 
make it. 

Now we have taken this project as one which leaves a 
channel less than a thousand feet wide. Supposing it to 
be a thousand feet wide, it has been stated to you by 
various witnesses that channels thus limited by fixed, 
solid structures will have a far too small area of water to 
accommodate present navigation. One fact alone will 
show you that this is true. The harbor-master, Mr. 
Tewksbury, testified to you that he was obliged to allow 
1,000 feet in width for the track of the East Boston 
Ferry boats. 

Mr. Dana. That was in the length of the stream. 

Mr. Whiting. I say that the harbor-master keeps 
clear 1,000 feet in width for those boats to run across a 
distance of only 1,400 feet. This wide passage is left 
because the force of the tide drifts the boat 500 feet each 
side of a right line between the slips. Now you have 
the force of the wind over five or six times as long a dis¬ 
tance to bear upon the boat. It is obvious that the chan¬ 
nel of 1,000 feet in width will not accommodate the long 
route of the Chelsea Ferry boats, to say nothing of the 
others. But when you consider that the Chelsea Ferry 


28 


boats carry upon an average as many as 3,500 passengers 
per day, amounting to more than a million a year, as Mr. 
Fenno, the ferry agent, stated, you will at once see the 
importance of keeping that channel clear. 

The population of Chelsea is 7,000. Its increase on 
the Winnisimmet Company’s lands alone is 500 a year. 

They swear to you that two boats running in connection 
will soon be necessary. Can you doubt the importance 
of accommodating this population with punctual and safe 
conveyances ? They are your friends and neighbors. 
They’are men who dwell there, and spend their days 
here in mercantile and other pursuits. How vastly im¬ 
portant it is that nothing should be done to interfere with 
the constant transmission of those passengers as punc¬ 
tually as Railroad cars ' would carry them in any other 
direction. 

East Boston also is not stationary. It is filling up 
with ship yards and with iron works, and a variety of 
manufactories, all along the Northern and Eastern shores. 
Bold water is brought into requisition there for various 
purposes, and wharf frontage is selling for high prices, 
and of course selling thus in consequence of the various 
enterprises which are there in progress. 

Now it is to be considered that if you are asked to do 
anything which will impede the daily business, and which 
will diminish the comfort and convenience of a large 
number of your own citizens in those towns, it ought not 
to be done. We say, without the least hesitation, in be¬ 
half of one set of our clients, that if you carry out this 
project you will greatly injure the Chelsea Ferry. We 


29 


believe that it will be impossible safely to run those ferry 
boats, especially when they are obliged to put on double 
boats. You know that the United States vessels are 
lying at anchor close by their line. That is one of the 
public inconveniences which the public good requires the 
ferry to suffer. But every vessel stationed on the line of 
their route, in windy or in thick weather especially, 
causes trouble, expense and inconvenience, and may 
cause fatal accidents. If you put on two boats, the pub¬ 
lic will still require punctuality. Both boats must start 
at the same time. If one is detained the other must be. 
You know that when a steamer is stopped by any ob¬ 
struction she cannot be commanded by her rudder, as she 
makes no headway ; and if she has no sea room to allow 
her to drift a considerable distance, you cannot navigate 
her in safety. The petitioners propose to put up a 
smooth stone wall. And then, instead of leaving the 
flats, against which the steamer may be liable to drift 
without any danger, there will be only this stone wall to 
be run against, thus endangering the boats. The risk of 
collision, especially in the night time, will be increased 
by reason of the very alteration proposed. It will be ne¬ 
cessary for the vessels to anchor in the channel, which 
here will be so narrow, that they will often be unable to 
get round the sharp elbow which it is proposed to project 
into the stream. 

Then there is the difficulty about ice. We have not 
brought many men to testify on that subject, because we 
thought that a few experienced pilots, who were familiar 
with its action in this place, would answer as well as 


30 


many. Ice forms on flats below as well as above ; in 
short, on flats every where, on East Boston and South 
Boston, and all around the harbor. It conies in with 
great force when the tide enters, and, unless it clogs and 
piles up, goes out with force when the tide flows out. 
It must find its passage way, and will substantially 
follow the current. The narrower the channel, the hard¬ 
er the ice is jammed in, and the more difficult is it for 
vessels to escape. Although it is undoubtedly true, as 
has been said, that a rapid channel will carry the ice out 
quicker, that is one of the difficulties. The bow of the 
boat will be smashing against the ice ; whereas if there 
was a sufficient space, the boat could make its way 
through the ice far better than in a narrow channel, 
where, as in a canal, there is no chance for the ice to be 
pushed off towards one shore or the other. 

Such we think to be the injurious consequences of this 
project to this ferry. And the Winnisimmet Company 
have, among the earliest of the remonstrants, retained 
us to represent their views before this Committee. They 
have invested a large amount in their undertaking. 
They are enterprising men. They have built up Chel¬ 
sea, and they have helped to build up Boston. They 
are entitled to have nothing done unnecessarily which 
would materially injure their property or their prospects. 

Then, Gentlemen, in regard to the Navy Yard, Com¬ 
modore Downes has written a letter in which he requests 
that this Committee should postpone any action till he 
can receive instructions from the Government. Now we 


31 


do not doubt but that they will conclude that the filling 
up of all these flats will injure the Navy Yard. 

But what will be the effect on the wharf property at 
East Boston ? That I think is a much more important 
matter, because there is a vastly larger amount of proper¬ 
ty to be affected. There are of. wharf frontage 32,200 
feet to be injured, if not destroyed. It is admitted that 
it will change the current. It will send mud and silt, 
that formerly stopped in the Mystic Biver, all about their 
wharves. No doubt but that it will be a great injury, 
by putting the proprietors to constant expense in dredg¬ 
ing out. It will be in the nature of a tax placed upon 
the people of East Boston to an amount equivalent to 
what they will have to pay in dredging, and all this bur¬ 
den will be imposed simply to put money into the pock¬ 
ets of Messrs. Tucker and others. The Commonwealth 
will lose infinitely more than she will gain. You can 
judge of the evil of that tax by the amount Mr. Lewis 
said he had paid, and was about paying, for dredging a 
few wharves within the last ten years. 

The mud will fill up what little channel there is left in 
the Charlestown side of the Mystic River. 

The effect on Boston wharf property you will also 
easily see. More mud will be thrown around the wharves. 
It will require an immense increase of dredging. It will 
require the citizens of Boston to pay a new annual tax to 
an enormous amount. And there is no remedy ; but they 
will be obliged to take money out of their pockets every 
year to undo the mischief which the petitioners seek to 
do. Considering the effect on wharf property alone, it 


32 


will destroy ten times as much as it will create. It will 

9 ^ 

injure and destroy, Gentlemen, far more than ten times 
what it will create, when you consider that they do not 
propose now to have wharves, hut only frontage not ca¬ 
pable of being made into wharves. It will injure and 
destroy a vast amount of other property ; for I think that 
is substantially admitted by Mr. Davis. He tells you 
that in order to make the proposed narrowing of the chan¬ 
nel feasible, they must make a smooth wall of stone, or 
some other material, on the Chelsea side. And, if so, 
the same consequences will follow from the projection of 
wharves from one side as the other. Therefore they want 
you to prevent the whole Chelsea and Malden shore from 
being used as wharf property. 

Mr. Dana. Building up the marshes would answer 
the purpose of preventing them from being carried away. 

Mr. Whiting. What would they build on them ? 

Mr. Dana. Wharves! 

Mr. Whiting. If you build wharves you have your¬ 
self proved that they will ruin the harbor of Boston. 
Mr. Davis says that this plan will render your scheme 
disastrous. 

Another consequence will be that the mud will be 
thrown across the Chelsea channel behind East Boston, 
and this will be ultimately filled up ; and thus fifteen 
times as much frontage will be destroyed as that which 
will be created. Now you know if any thing happens 
by which a bar is created and maintained across the 
mouth of that creek, all navigation above will be impracti¬ 
cable. The creek now contains the deepest water in 


o o 


OO 


Boston Harbor. A seventy-four gun ship can go up. 
But if this bar be made, you will see what a consequence 
will result. There will be thousands of feet of frontage 
destroyed. As I have said, there are the Glendon Iron 
Works, various factories, ship-yards, and the northern 
depot of the Grand Junction Bailroad. So that you will 
thwart the purpose for which this Bailroad depot was lo¬ 
cated there, for the sake of giving another Bailroad ac¬ 
cess to bold water somewhere else. 

When lands are filled up in the creek to the Commis¬ 
sioners’ line, you will see that the amount of water in the 
creek being diminished, the difficulty will be increased ; 
because the force of that current being less, and the 
force of the Mystic Biver being greater, the latter will 
have a tendency to turn the former against the opposite 
shore and rapidly increase the bar across the mouth of 
the creek, by creating eddies, checking the current, and 
causing mud to be deposited. The Chelsea ship-yards 
then cannot be used for navigation. 

The U. S. ordnance depot is about one hundred yards 
above Chelsea Bridge. Besolutions have passed request¬ 
ing the U. S. Government to fix upon this as a place for 
manufacturing steam frigates. If the project of these pe¬ 
titioners is carried into effect, that will put an end to 
this improvement. Another effect is, that the narrowing 
of the channel will tend to wear away the shore on the 
northern side of the river. And I think Mr. Davis him¬ 
self admits that, in his testimony this afternoon. 

Mr. Dana. He said he did not apprehend any thing 
# 

of the kind. 


5 


34 


Mr. Whiting. I do not think he did apprehend it, be¬ 
cause he said he had no doubt it would he so. When 
those who live on the spot and have watched the ice and 
the water with their mutual action on those flats, testify 
that they will he carried away unless they are protected, 
there ought certainly to he some protection guaranteed hy 
these projectors. 

Go round on the East Boston shore. I have spoken of 
the channel. Can they launch vessels there with a chan¬ 
nel of six or eight hundred feet only, and a stone wall 
on each side ? How will they get along with the mud 
clogging and filling up the wharves ? Will they like to 
hear the expense which Mr. Lewis has incurred in 
dredging, and that even doubled and trebled ? Mr. 
Lewis has spent in nine years $40,000 in dredging. He 
has already expended for the Grand Junction Railroad 
$21,000 in dredging, and has $19,000 more to pay. 
Will this tax he a very just thing to add to the expenses 
of the citizens of East Boston ? We think not, and we 
think that you will not so consider it. What benefit will 
follow from this plan, when they will destroy more than ten 
times as much as they will produce ? What obligations 
do they propose to enter into to do any thing beyond what 
their interests demand ? If you grant the Railroad Bill, 
what obligation is there that they will touch the flats 
above the bridge ? If they get the flats this year, will 
they not force you to give them wharves next year, with¬ 
out which their plan is abortive ? They came here with 
plans on which wharves were sticking out in all direc¬ 
tions. That was their design. That is their design 


35 


now. And if you grant the leave to fill up the solid 
land, they will ask you next year to give them that 
which will make this land useful. They will hereafter 
insist on such provisions, as, if granted, will he ruinous 
to the harbor. 

But what is the value of their proposed plan of deep¬ 
ening the channel of Mystic Biver ? Deepening the 
channel! Is there any necessity of doing it ? Is not the 
channel now deep enough in Mystic Biver ? Is there any 
complaint that the channel of Mystic Biver is not suffi¬ 
ciently capacious for the uses to which it is put at present, 
provided you allow the flats to he covered at high tide ? 

Has any merchant, any ship-master come* here and 
said he wanted the channel of Mystic Biver enlarged ? 
Has any body said that it was important for the com¬ 
merce of the harbor that it should now he done 1 What 
pilot has come in and testified to this ? Why should you 
begin to doctor the patient before any one has told you 
he is sick ? 

They talk of widening the river. We say that that 
will not improve that channel at present, because the flats 
are now of use in case of emergencies for boats passing 
occasionally, and for light craft at high tide ; because 
they are useful as mud catchers, for the very reason that 
the width of the mouth of that river allows the mud to 
be deposited without bringing it into the harbor ; because 
the channel proposed by the petitioners is to be lined 
with stone walls, which will be an injury; because a part 
of the space left is to be lined with vessels fastened to 
these walls, and therefore the available part of the chan- 


36 


nel will be narrowed ; because it will render it impossi¬ 
ble, if you grant this change, ever to excavate what these 
men now fill up, as it will be beyond your power. Why, 
Mr. Davis himself admitted that it takes 16 or 1700 feet 
of channel to work a vessel in. 

Mr. Dehon. What sort of a vessel, and for what pur¬ 
pose ? 

Mr. Whiting. I do not care what sort of a vessel, or 
for what purpose, we want to save the power to navigate 
all sorts. 

Mr. Dehon. In London it is done in the space of 300 
feet. 

Mr. Whiting. I have no doubt but that a pilot of 
great skill may navigate in a space as wide only as the 
yard-arms of his craft. But that is not what we want. 
If the space which I have mentioned, say 1,600 or 1,700 
feet, is necessary for the convenience of the shipping, 
you will have to excavate what they fill up. Widening 
the channel to a small extent, especially taking out the 
edge of the flats, will be no compensation for the injury 
resulting from the fact that you must thereby forever 
surrender all possibility of enlarging the channel, what¬ 
ever the emergency may be* 

Again, narrowing the channel, and thereby accele¬ 
rating the current, would cause the Chelsea shore to wear 
away, unless it be protected by a wall. So that this 
would be a great evil. With wharves built into the 
channel on the south side, the project would be ruinous 
to the harbor, as witnesses on both sides agree. They 
admit that with wharves only on this side of the channel, 


their scheme would he ruinous ; and there is no reason to 
suppose it would not he so if wharves are projected on the 
north side. Therefore they bring you a chimera which 
promises you no useful result. You get no slips, you 
would destroy the possibility of making any on the op¬ 
posite shore. If you want to improve the river , excavate 
the flats and there leave it. 

Then again, the proposed improvement of the river as a 
receiving basin to allow more water to be received and 
discharged at each tide would prove a failure, in conse¬ 
quence of a familiar principle of hydraulics. And I 
would beg the attention of the learned witness [Lieut. 
Davis] from whom, I understand, we are to hear again, 
that sudden contractions and expansions of water courses 
diminish the quantity of water that would flow through 
them if uniform. And does he not propose first to 
diminish, then to expand, and finally to contract it again ? 
What principle of hydraulics will authorize the assertion 
that narrowing a stream at one part only, will increase 
the quantity of wafer ? It is proposed theoretically to 
have one of the sides of the channel smooth and the other 
rough and ragged, as nature left it. It is not proposed to 
carry on any improvement up to Malden Bridge, for that 
would cross wharves which do not belong to the petition¬ 
ers. Mr. Davis appears to have misunderstood the pro¬ 
ject. It cannot be their project, for the bill which they 
have had reported proposed to fill up a quantity of land, 
leaving the river of its present width at Mr. Johnson's 
wharf , and then it is to be contracted again at the bridge. 
It cannot increase the quantity of water, but must diminish 


38 


it, thus to place an obstruction at the mouth of the river, 
there producing contraction, leaving it of its usual width 
at Johnson’s wharf, there allowing expansion, then reach¬ 
ing Malden Bridge, there causing contraction, again pass¬ 
ing the bridge, and once more allowing expansion. 

Again when the current flows two ways in consequence 
of the natural flow of the river and the tide , a tunnel 
shaped estuary with a wide mouth will receive and dis¬ 
charge more water than it will by placing any incum¬ 
brance across part of the mouth, even though you deepen 
the rest. 

Therefore we say, that the theory of improvement, 
such as Mr. Davis would advocate, is not what these pe¬ 
titioners would carry into execution. They cannot have 
a uniform channel ; or if they did, the Mystic being an 
estuary and the filling diminishing the area of the water 
section, would prevent the water from running in or out 
as freely as before. At the same time I admit, as Mr. 
Davis has said, that the channel of Mystic River, though 
not improved, will be unnecessarily deepened. And that 
will be one of the injuries which will be done. 

But there are other considerations of infinite import¬ 
ance to a just judgment upon this question, whether it is 
safe to diminish the capacity of Boston Harbor. 

We should legislate for the future as well as the pre¬ 
sent. If the water area between Chelsea Bridge and East 
Boston were not wanted at present, will it not be wanted 
in f uture ? Will not the expanding commerce of this 
port require all the accommodation for shipping that the 
utmost capacity of the harbor will afford ? Who can 


39 


cloubt that in less than thirty years the foreign commerce 
of Boston will be increased four fold 1 If so, Boston 
Harbor will scarcely be able to hold the necessary ship¬ 
ping. 

That I may not be thought to exaggerate, let me quote 
from the able and admirable report of the Harbor Com¬ 
missioner of 1850. 

“ In settling the great question before us, we believe that the growing com¬ 
merce of the city, has not been sufficiently considered. We have obtained 
official statements of the imports and exports of the port of Boston, and 
also of the arrivals and clearances from 1830 to 1849, inclusive,—making a 
period of twenty years,—which we append to this report. By these state¬ 
ments it will be seen, that our commerce, viewed in all its bearings, has at 

* 4 

least tripled within that period. Taking the consecutive years of 1830, 
1831, and 1832, our imports averaged $ 12,701,767, while in the three con¬ 
secutive years, ending with 1849, the average imports were $28,593,100. 
Here is an increase of $15,831,333 within the medium period of eighteen 
years. And if we take the extreme period of twenty years, we shall see 
that the imports, which in 1830 amounted to only $8,348,053, have, in 
1849, arisen to $24,117,175. 

“ But the values of our imports are not a test of the increase of business, 
so far as harbor accommodations are concerned. The great reduction in 
the prices of almost eyery article, will show that the quantity has increased 
in a greater ratio than the value ; and it is manifest that it is the quantity, 
rather than the value, which shows the amount of accommodation which 
our shipping and navigating interest requires. Our arrivals and clearances, 
perhaps, furnish the surest test of the increase of our commerce. Our for¬ 
eign arrivals in 1830 were only 642, while in 1849 they were 3,111;— 
being 484 per cent, more in 1849 than in 1830. And our coasting arrivals, 
which in 1830 were 2,938, have gone up, in 1849, to 0,156. The whole 
number of arrivals in 1830, both foreign and domestic, were 3,680 ;—while 
in 1849 they amounted to 9,267. But though these statements are official, 
they do not show the whole amount of the shipping in our harbor. A vast 
number of our coasting vessels neither enter nor clear at the Custom House. 
These may safely be estimated at 4,000 a year, which number is fast in¬ 
creasing. If this number be added to the number of vessels that enter or 


40 


clear at the port, it will make an aggregate of nearly 14,000, which came 
into our harbor the past year. 

“ These facts will fully sustain the position that our commerce has 
tripled in the space of twenty years. And if the commerce of Boston is to go 
on increasing in this ratio, the day is not far distant when the flats will be 
wanted for dockage and anchorage of the vessels, which our growing trade 
will call into this port. And even now these flats are used by vessels of light 
draft of water. The eastern coasters, with wood and lumber, frequently 
pass across the flats at high water. And it was in evidence before the 
Commissioners, that during periods of easterly winds, when it is difficult to 
go to sea, there are frequently several hundreds of these small vessels, 
mostly from Maine and the British Provinces, lying in the harbor ; and, 
owing to the crowded state of the channel , large numbers of them resort to the 
soft mud on the fats for anchorage ;—a fact that shows most conclusively, 
that fifty, or even twenty years hence , the very space which it is now proposed 
to fill up, will become absolutely necessary to accommodate the vessels in the 
harbor. The extreme line which has been recommended, which, for the 
sake of distinction, we will call Mr. Carey’s line, not only allows all the 
South Boston flats to be filled, with the exception of a small point opposite 
Rowe’s wharf, but actually cuts off nearly two hundred acres below low 
watermark;—the greater portion of which, as shown by the soundings, 
has a depth, at extreme low water, of from three to four feet,—while some 
portions of the harbor, thus proposed to be cut off, have a depth of from 
four to seven feet; and to these soundings we may add two feet, to show 
the depth at mean low water. Here there are nearly two hundred acres, well 
adapted to the anchorage of these small coasters, which it has been proposed to 
fill up; but which , we are satisfied , will, in a few years, become almost indis¬ 
pensably necessary for this class of vessels. We, therefore, should regard it 
as a departure from the dictates of true wisdom, to suffer any embankment 
or structure to be erected upon any of the harbor belonging to the State, which 
can be used as a roadstead, or converted into wet docks. 

“ The great argument in favor of filling up the flats, is, that more land is 
wanted for warehouses and dwellings. We admit that the circumscribed 
condition of the city is such as to create a good demand for land. But the 
harbor is as circumscribed as the town; and the demand, prospective at 
least, is as great for water as for land. In prospect, there is a great de¬ 
mand for both. But we consider the demand for water to be paramount. 
The demand for land is, in a great degree, an individual demand,—the de¬ 
mand of companies engaged in speculations ; while the demand for water is 


41 


a demand of the •public,—a demand of commerce, —in which the Stale and na¬ 
tion have a deep and vital interest. When such claims come in competi¬ 
tion, that of the public should prevail. 

“ It may be some inconvenience to the merchant to reside out of the 
city,—but it would be a greater one to have his vessel compelled to anchor 
out of the harbor. The numerous and increasing trains upon our Railroads, 
and the hourly and half hourly coaches which are constantly passing and 
repassing, between the city and the neighboring towns, render it no great 
inconvenience to reside five, or even ten miles from State Street. Whether 
his residence is ten minutes’ or thirty minutes’ ride from his place of busi¬ 
ness, is of but little consequence to the merchant; but it is a matter of great 
moment to him whether his vessel can anchor in the upper harbor or in 
Nantasket roads. So of the Railroad Corporations, whose claims are urged 
with great force. They had better stop one or two hundred rods short of 
navigable water, than to run so far into tide water as to destroy the chan¬ 
nels of the harbor, and so render their Railroads unproductive. We say 
again, that we regard the demand for water as greater than that for land ;— 
the former being the demand of public, the latter, that of private interest. 

“ It has been represented to the Commissioners, by a number of mer¬ 
chants, that there is a great demand for wharf accommodations in the city, 
especially for lumber, molasses, and other bulky articles. We have no 
doubt but that it would be somewhat convenient for persons engaged in 
those branches of trade, to have wharves where they could land such ar¬ 
ticles, and have them remain upon the wharf until they were disposed of. 
But it must be obvious that they could not afford to pay for such accom¬ 
modations situated in any central part of the city. They must, under any 
circumstances, occupy for such purposes, wharves somewhat removed from 
the centre of business ; and we apprehend that there is but little difficulty 
in obtaining such accommodations now' in the outparts of the city. We 
could name wharves, where we think that such accommodations could be 
had, and bulky articles could remain on the wharves without being liable to 
be disturbed by the press of business. It w T as in evidence before the Com¬ 
missioners that wharf accommodations in the city of Boston, were greater than 
in any of the great commercial cities ;—and taking the amount of accommo¬ 
dation into the account, the rates of wharfage were less here than in the 
other great marts of trade. This evidence was given by some of the very 
gentlemen who ask for more wharf accommodation. But if there is a great 
demand for wharf room, that demand can be supplied by the erection of 

6 


42 


ivharves at East Boston , and other parts of the city , ivithout encroaching upon 
the harbor. 

“ The gentlemen who advocate the filling of the flats, give us glowing 
pictures of the prospective growth of the city, and the great increase of our 
trade, when our present Railroads have fully developed their capabilities 
for business, and when those now in the progress of construction shall 
have been completed. We accede to all these representations. We be¬ 
lieve that the picture has not been overwrought. We anticipate a great 
increase of the trade of Boston ;—and for that very reason we think the 
capacity of the harbor should be enlarged, rather than diminished. For 
that reason, we would arrest a policy, which, if encouraged, would prove 
ruinous to the harbor, and be subversive of the end w ? hich it professes to 
secure. We have already shown that our commerce has tripled in twenty 
years, and we see no reason why it may not continue to increase in the 
same ratio. The Western Railroad has already contributed greatly to the 
trade of Boston, by connecting our city with Troy and Albany ; and when 
the several lines of Railroad through New Hampshire and Yeimont, which 
are now nearly completed, shall connect us with Lake Champlain, and so 
with Montreal,—and by the Ogdensburgh Railroad with the great lakes of 
the West, we believe that our trade will receive a new impulse. 

“ The importance of this northern and western trade can hardly be over¬ 
estimated. It is a fact well sustained, that for several years past, one half 
of the vast productions of the valley of the Mississippi, sent to the Atlan¬ 
tic, finds its way to market through the great lakes ; and the rapid increase 
of population in the upper part of this valley, together with the increased 
facilities of transportation by canals and railroads, which are now being 
furnished, will turn a larger per centage of this trade into the northern 
channel ; so that the day is not remote when the amount of western pro¬ 
ductions which reaches the ocean through this northern outlet, will be far 
greater than that w ? hich passes down the Mississippi. In an able report, 
submitted to Congress in 1847, by Col. Abert, of the United States Topo¬ 
graphical Engineers, the commerce of the lakes, meaning the trade only in 
one direction, is set down at $62,000,000 in 1846, and the products which 
arrived at New Orleans from the valley above, at the same sum. It also 
appears, by the same report, that while the trade down the Mississippi had 
increased, for the last few years, at the annual average rate of 5h per cent., 
that of the lakes had increased at the rate of 17£ per ct. At this rate, the com¬ 
merce of the lakes in 1856, will amount to $ 170,500,000. This estimate, 
Col. Abert thinks perfectly safe. He says : ‘ I see no reason to doubt the 


correctness of this estimate, and I feel under no apprehension of being re¬ 
proached for exaggerating, after the ten years shall have passed away.’ 

“ But in addition to the American commerce mentioned above, there is 
the trade with Canada, which ought to be taken into the account. The 
whole section of country, from Montreal to Lake Superior, is one capable 
of great productiveness, and as wheat land, is not inferior to the corres¬ 
ponding section on the American side of the line. The navigation of the 
St. Lawrence, always objectionable on account of the distance and the dan¬ 
ger, is closed about half of the year. The merchants in Canada are be¬ 
coming satisfied that they can obtain their supplies more readily, and at a 
cheaper rate, through the United States than by the way of the St. Law¬ 
rence ; and when our railroads are completed, we shall be brought into im¬ 
mediate commercial intercourse with our Canadian neighbors. We have 
already alluded to the productiveness of Canada West. Its exports, in 
1848, were about $ 10,000,000. Not only the soil, but the facilities of 
transportation, are such as may justify the belief that their trade with us 
will increase. The importance of this trade has not been sufficiently con¬ 
sidered by the great mass of our people. Montreal, the point at which our 
railroads are to terminate, is immediately connected with the whole coun¬ 
try above. The St. Lawrence, with the canals upon its margin, is naviga¬ 
ble at all stages of the water to Lake Ontario ; that lake is connected by 
the Welland Canal with Lake Erie ; so that steamers of four or five hun¬ 
dred tons burthen can pass from Montreal into the upper lakes. There is 
also a more northerly line of communication between Montreal and Lake 
Ontario, by the way of the Ottawa River and the Rideau Canal, termina¬ 
ting at Kingston. And it is in contemplation to extend a railroad from 
Kingston, or some place on Lake Ontario, through one of the most produc¬ 
tive sections of Upper Canada, to Lake Manitouline ;—thus connecting 
Lake Ontario with Lake Superior, and thereby bringing the copper regions, 
to all practical purposes, several hundred miles nearer to us than they are 
at present. All these improvements in Canada, the Ogdensburgh Railroad, 
the canal from the Sorel River, near St. John, to the St. Lawrence, and 
the railroad connecting St. Johns and Montreal,—must open a direct trade 
between Boston and the far West. 

“ The policy adopted by the national government, allowing a drawback 
upon merchandize sent inland to Canada, enables the Canadian merchant to 
obtain his goods from Europe, through the United States, free of duty ;— 
and the growing dissatisfaction towards the mother country, and the in¬ 
creasing sympathy for us and our free institutions, felt by the people in 


44 


these Provinces, all tend to bind us together, and to increase our commer¬ 
cial intercourse. From this view of the subject, together with the increase 
of our population and manufacturing industry, we may fairly anticipate a 
regular increase of our commerce, and a growing demand for harbor ac¬ 
commodations. 

“ There is another view of this subject, which ought not to be over¬ 
looked. By our present warehousing system, a large quantity of merchan¬ 
dize is kept constantly on hand, at Boston, and the merchant at Montreal or 
Kingston, may, at any time when the St. Lawrence is closed, obtain his 
supply of merchandize from our city, and this trade, once commenced, will 
be likely to continue. 

“ For this Canadian and western trade, Boston has no rival but New 
York. Between these cities there will be a brisk competition for this 
trade ; and it becomes us to adopt such a policy as will enable our commer¬ 
cial capital to compete on the most advantageous terms. Experience has 
shown that the Western Railroad, intersecting the trade of the west at 
Albany, a point some thirty or forty miles nearer to New York than to 
Boston, has been able to divert a portion of that trade from New York ; and 
if we are able to compete, in any degree, with the great commercial em¬ 
porium under these circumstances, we have full confidence in our success 
when our lines of communication are open to Montreal, where the differ¬ 
ence in distance is greatly in our favor. 

“ The geographical position of Boston gives her a decided advantage 
over her great rival, in a competition for the Canada trade. Samuel S. 
Lewis, Esq., agent of the English line of steamers, and who, from his po¬ 
sition, is supposed to possess reliable information on the subject, testified 
that we were nearer Europe, by three or four days’ sail, than New York, 
—and by the steamers, were nearer by a day and a half. He estimates the 
distance from Liverpool to Boston, by way of Halifax, at 2,876 miles, and 
from Liverpool to New York, by way of Halifax, at 3,093 miles; and 
from Liverpool to Boston direct, 2,856 miles, and from Liverpool to New 
York direct, at 3,073 miles ;—making a difference in favor of Boston of 
21/ miles. The distance from Montreal to Boston, he sets down at 344 
miles,—and from Montreal to New York, at 398 miles being 54 miles in 
favor of Boston ; so that the distance from Liverpool to Montreal, by way 
of Boston, is 271 miles less than by way of New York. Though Boston 
has the advantage in distance, and our railroads will be open when Lake 
Champlain and the Northern Canal are closed with ice, we must not forget 
that in New York we shall always find a powerful rival; and hence, it be- 


45 


comes us to afford every facility to this trade, by giving the greatest harbor 
accommodations in our power. 

“ We believe that the growing commerce of the city will, within fifty 
years, require the utmost capacity of the harbor; and that nothing should be 
filled which is capable, by excavation , of being converted , at a reasonable ex¬ 
pense , into wet docks or roadsteads .” 

Who then can doubt that the exigency of commerce is for 
water accommodation, rather than wharf accommodation; 
that the former can he abundantly supplied by using what 
we now have lying upon hold water; while the latter can 
be preserved only by resisting all encroachments not now 
authorized, and can he increased only by buying out the 
interest of riparian, owners. 

Will you now consider the effect which will be pro¬ 
duced on the channels of Boston Harbor ? Boston Har¬ 
bor consists of large channels which receive vast quan¬ 
tities of water from the ocean into estuaries or receiving 
basins above the city, and discharge it at each ebb of the 
tide, in addition to the water which accumulates in the 
rivers and flows down the streams. The quantity of 
water depends upon keeping these reservoirs open. Estu¬ 
aries or harbors composed of rivers and tides, where the 
main body of the water is received from and returned to 
the ocean, involve many considerations quite different 
from mere river harbors. Scientific theorists who ima¬ 
gined that the formation of channels in these cases de¬ 
pended solely upon the same laws as that of tidal estu¬ 
aries ; or that the same laws of hydraulics are applicable 
to each, have fallen into the grossest practical errors. In 
truth, there is a broad difference. The river tends to 
carry mud and silt and deposite in one direction, but the 


46 


tide has a tendency to carry it both ways ; the flood tide 
tends to neutralise the flow of the river; the ebb adds 
ten fold force to its action upon the bottom and sides. 

The distinction has been admitted by Mr. John Scott 
Russell, and what he says is, that the principles which he 
has laid down as applicable to the river harbors of Eng¬ 
land, are not at all applicable to estuaries. I will bring 
you the book if it is denied.—[See Report on Tidal Har¬ 
bors. Parliamentary Reports, 1845, p. 223.] 

This subject must not be looked at in detail , otherwise 
what might be locally beneficial, may as a whole prove 
injurious. 

Now we propose to show you that filling up 100 or 
120 acres of flats will inevitably tend to cause the harbor 
to fill, producing shoals, where none exist, raising those 
which now are, and filling the channels themselves ; thus 
destroying the harbor for all commercial purposes . And 
this conclusion I propose to prove to you in the following 
manner: first, by the application to this case of certain 
physical laws derived from the observation and experi¬ 
ence of men of the highest claims to our respect, and 
which may be considered as established laws of hydrau¬ 
lics applicable to estuaries ; second, by the testimony and 
opinions of men of science and practical skill and expe¬ 
rience, who are personally acquainted with our harbor ; 
third, by the admissions of the petitioners’ own witnesses 
and men of science ; fourth, by the unanimous opinion 
of five successive Boards of Commissioners of this State ; 
next, by the examination of the effects already produced 
upon the harbor by partially excluding the tide water 


47 


thereof; and lastly, by the history of several harbors in 
England, Scotland and Wales, which were formed origi¬ 
nally in a manner similar to ours ; that is, with estuaries 
or harbors at the mouth of rivers. 

Gentlemen, I shall not at any length detain you by 
going at large into this subject at this late hour of the 
evening, because I feel that your almost exhausted atten¬ 
tion can hardly endure much addition to the fatiguing and 
protracted labors of the session. But let me state what 
no man will deny; no man, I mean, who makes any 
claims to be a man of science on the subject of hydrau¬ 
lics. No man will* deny that diminishing the area of the 

t * 

w T ater section will increase the rapidity of the current. 
Narrow your channel and the water will run faster. No 
man will deny that if the area remains the same and the 
water be deepened, the scouring force will be increased. 
What will be the result ? It is admitted that if there be 
mud and silt that would otherwise remain stationary, this 
increase of the current may bring it down and lodge it 
somewhere below. Some people tell you where, and some 
do not. No man will deny this ; that the channels which 
feed the receiving basin and discharge the waters, will 
grow larger or smaller in proportion to the amount of 
water which is daily passing through them ; that you 
must preserve the greatest capacity of your receiving 
basin in order to preserve the capacity of the harbor, 
which consists of the channels that receive and discharge 
the tidal waters. 

The consequence of this is perfectly obvious; that 
whereas the reservoirs of Boston Harbor, in 1775, re- 


48 


ceived, (as the evidence shows,) 70 millions of tons of 
water at each average tide, and 90 millions of tons at 
every spring tide, by filling up to the line of riparian own¬ 
ership, you have reduced the capacity of the reservoir, and 
thereby the amount of water to 42 million tons ; that 
this diminution of the flow of water will gradually show 
its effects in the size and width of your channels, and 
that they will be somewhat in the proportion of 42 to 70. 
Not that the same mathematical proportion will always 
follow. For the channel will diminish in more than 
arithmetical proportion to the water flowing through it. 

The petitioners wish to fill up a reservoir which will 
contain two millions of tons of water at each tide, which 
performs or helps to perform the scouring process. They 
ask you to cut off one-twentieth part of all the receiving 
basin that will be left when the rivers are filled up accord¬ 
ing to the lines of riparian ownership. You have heard 
testimony concerning the process which nature follows in 
filling up channels. Some have told you that no effect 
would be produced. Some have told you that much 
effect would follow. 

What is the mode in which the channels fill up ? 
Look at the sections of the map, and you see the process. 
But look at any channel, and I think you will find 
that it usually fills not in the deepest part first , but that 
it fills first on the sides. And while the channel is 
being destroyed, the sides are approaching each other, 
while the depth is remaining nearly the same. That will 
account for the fact that the channels are filling up at a 


49 


rapid rate, while the depth in certain places may be pre¬ 
served. 

Again, it is a fact that channels shoal in certain places, 
while they retain or increase their depth in others. The 
current may send the sand out and shoal it where it 
would least hear the injury; that is, where there is 
already a shoal. It is no matter how deep the harbor is 
made in spots. It is no matter how much you go on in 
making the harbor deeper where it is not wanted to he 
deeper, if at the same time you allow it to shoal where 
it is wanted to be deeper. Injury to the harbor neces¬ 
sarily occurs by such changes. 

Two tides brought in opposition tend to neutralize each 
other. Then there is a tendency to drop the sediment 
which would otherwise sweep onward. So that, when you 
bring the current of Chelsea Creek, weakened as it will 
be inevitably by reducing the amount of water in con¬ 
sequence of filling up new wharves, to the current of 
Mystic River, strengthened as it will be by narrowing 
the channel, you bring a weaker against a stronger cur¬ 
rent, and the mud and sediment which formerly swept 

% 

down into the harbor below, will now be deposited at the 
mouth of the creek, and form a bar. 

Again, a tunnel-shaped estuary will not take in so 
much tide water, with an obstruction placed in its mouth, 
as without it; especially when the water is required to 
go further, and then to turn a more acute angle than 
otherwise would be necessary. And you are, by this 
filling, diminishing the capacity of the receiving basin 
itself. 


7 


50 


Lastly, whenever mud or other material which is spe¬ 
cifically heavier than water is taken up by the force of 
the current, it must be deposited again when the velocity 
decreases to a point below that which caused it to be 
taken up, and not till then. The result is, that mud 
which is now allowed to deposit at the mouth of the 
Mystic River, because the velocity of the water dimin¬ 
ishes at that point in consequence of the expansion of the 
stream, will be deposited there no longer, but will be de¬ 
posited elsewhere. I know my friends are too well ac¬ 
quainted with the subject of hydraulics to deny this. 
But one thing is sure, that the increased current will 
carry the mud and silt down stream. We can tell you 
where it will stop. It is where the decreased velocity 
of the current will allow it to deposit. And if it be 
not deposited in Mystic channel, will it not be deposi¬ 
ted in the Harbor of Boston , where the channel is broad¬ 
est and the water is stillest ? 

Then as to the testimony of the men of practical sci¬ 
ence and skill! My learned friends may state in argu¬ 
ment that certain of the Commissioners of 1850 favor 
their project. I have to present a conclusive answer to 
that. They say that perhaps this project might be tole¬ 
rated. They say they do not advocate it, but that if 
the Legislature allow it at all, it should be done under 
restrictions. 

I have to say of that report of the Commissioners, 
which is one of the most able ever written, that the fill¬ 
ing up of these flats is in violation of every one of the 
principles which are thereby established. No specific pro- 


51 


ject is recommended in that report, as I understand it. 
They state that if the Legislature shall see fit to allow 
any of those flats to he filled up, it must he done under 
limitations and conditions. And they are such limita¬ 
tions and conditions as it is impossible to enforce on 
these parties. But they admit that though the channel 
of the Mystic River might be improved, they were appre¬ 
hensive that it would throw the mud down into Boston 
Harbor. That is precisely our reason why that project 
should not be tolerated for a moment. 

Then Mr. Davis is brought forward as advocating the 
project. By the way, let me put to you one thing about 
this report. The Commissioners say, if the Legislature 
grant leave to fill up the flats, it should be on condition 
that the Company should be made to excavate as much 
land as they fill up, and that they shall be compelled to 
maintain that excavation. That they cannot do. And 
Mr. Davis himself says that that would be chimerical. 

Mr. Dehon. No ! 

Mr. Whiting. “Romantic” was his language, and 
not chimerical. 

Mr. Dehon. He was asked about excavating all the 
flats. 

Mr. Whiting. No ! This was the question. The 
Commissioners of 1850 said, that under no circumstances 
should those flats be allowed to be filled up, without the 
compensation of requiring those who filled, perpetually to 
keep their excavation from filling up. Then, if they can 
do that and will do that, the injury by diminishing the 


52 


receiving basin is compensated for, but not that resulting 
from the scouring of Mystic River into Boston Harbor. 

I have a word to say of Mr. Davis. The intercourse 
that I have had the pleasure of enjoying with that gen¬ 
tleman has been of the most agreeable character. But 
because I say that, and because I acknowledge that he is 
acquainted with the principles of hydraulics, it is not for 
me to blind my eyes to the facts. I say that I believe that 
Mr. Davis has not yet made himself master of this sub¬ 
ject. He has examined it in certain attitudes. He has 
taken a partial view of this particular case, without con¬ 
sidering its bearings in relation to the entire scheme of 
filling up other parts of the harbor. Boston Harbor, with 
its wharves, its flats and its channels, he has not examin¬ 
ed thoroughly with reference to these inquiries. He 
could not tell you how many feet the flats in question 
were above average low water mark. After he produced 
his formulary for determining the amount of land to be 
excavated, which would contain a body of water having 
the same scouring power as that excluded by the filling 
one hundred acres of these flats ; he then told us that an 
excavation of about fifty acres would accomplish that re¬ 
sult. I then inquired of him whether the excavation 
must not be between high and low water mark. He said 
it must. I asked if the excavation must not be perma¬ 
nently maintained , in order permanently to obviate the 
objection of reducing the receiving basin ? He said it 
must ; but that the excavation proposed would never fill 
up, because it was in the channel itself, and that the pe¬ 
titioners proposed to excavate eighty , instead of fifty 


53 


acres ; and this would be a permanent excavation of a 
larger number of acres than be bad shown by bis formu¬ 
lary was a just equivalent for the filling. I then asked 
for the cubic feet of water excluded by the filling. He 
replied be could not tell. I inquired for the cubic con¬ 
tents of the flats above low water mark. He referred me 
to others for an answer. He bad, in fact, made no ac¬ 
tual application of the principles of science he bad stated, 
to this specific case, and substantially admitted a prac¬ 
tical want of acquaintance with the locality. He pro¬ 
fesses to state principles ,—there be is at home ; and 
when be shall bring forward a plan for the improvement 
of our harbor, which I am told will ere long appear ; 
after he shall have bad opportunity to become acquainted 
with all its details, we shall then know bow he views 
this proposed improvement in connection with the whole 
subject. I shall give great consideration to every thing 
that emanates from so distinguished a gentleman. 

But it is admitted by Mr. Davis that he cannot tell 
where this mud and silt, once scoured out, will go to ; 
and he does admit that Boston Harbor is now going to 
ruin. 

Mr. Davis. Deteriorating. 

Mr. Whiting. And deteriorating means going to ruin. 
He admits that we are on the wrong track. I am going 
to ask you, what we have done that should fill up Boston 
Harbor to such an extent within the last few years ? 

Mr. Davis states another fact,—that the Mystic River 
flats are growing; that they have grown out 200 feet 
within a few years. And he proposes to doctor Mystic 


54 


River. Mr. Davis admits that you cannot tell what will 
he the ultimate result of any one change you may make. 
You can tell what it will begin to do ; but where it will 
end, and what will become of it, probably no man will 
say. Now I will leave Mr. Davis with this statement,— 
that we think him perfectly sincere ; that we think him 
very well informed ; a very good liydrographist; that 
he is a well-educated gentleman in all respects ; and that 
his opinions are as much entitled to consideration as 
those of any other person would be in his situation ; but 
that he is interested on one side of this question ; that 
every thing he says he thinks is true ; but that w T hen he 
is examined about the mode of curing the flats in Boston 
Harbor, it is like attempting, at a venture, to give medi¬ 
cine to heal a local disease ; and although there be a 
possibility that a cough may be cured, there is an equal 
possibility that a consumption will be caused. 

We show you, on our side, among scientific witnesses, 
Mr. Parrot , w T ho has known the harbor of Boston as long 
as Mr. Davis has ; a gentleman employed by the Harbor 
Commissioners in making the same hydrographic sur¬ 
veys that Mr. Davis has been making ; a person well 
read on all these subjects, and having deeply at heart the 
preservation of Boston Harbor ; differing from Mr. Davis 
in his results ; agreeing with him in the laws he main¬ 
tains, but disagreeing in the practical application of them. 
Mr. Davis takes it as no disparagement that he and 
others agree in principles of science, but disagree in their 
application to specific cases. It is in that, that I, myself, 


55 


disagree from Mr. Davis, although I do not assume to 
he an hydrographer. 

We then, show you Mr. Low, who has been a County 
Commissioner, w T ho has made soundings, observed the 
tides where he resides, on the other side of the river; 
who enjoys a high reputation as an engineer and sur¬ 
veyor ; who has noticed the effect of the ice, the silt, 
the growth of the flats, and the whole course of this chan¬ 
nel ; who has watched Chelsea Creek and the formation 
of these bars ; who, though agreeing in the principles 
which Mr. Davis presents, disagrees in the practical 
results. 

We next produce Mr. Tewksbury, appointed as the 
Harbor Master, who ought to know, if any one ought to 
know, the changes of the currents, the shoals, and the 
causes of them. For that is his daily business. 

We have brought you Capt. Read, who has run daily 
over the very ground of which we are talking, for eighteen 

vears. 

%/ 

We presented to you Mr. Fenno, a gentleman of great 
intelligence and great respectability, the agent of the 
Winnisimmet Ferry Company. 

We also bring to you Mr. Thomas Lamb, a distin¬ 
guished citizen, and President of an Insurance Office. 
I do not know whom I could bring before you, as a man of 
sound practical judgment, better than him. 

Then we have brought Mr. Samuel S. Lewis. If my 
friend by my side [Mr. Dehon] will recal some of his 
earlier professional achievements in connection with ques¬ 
tions before Legislative Committees, he will recollect 


56 


how many Committees he has addressed, and how many 
opponents he has routed, horse, foot and dragoon, by 
means of the testimony of Mr. Lewis, and of those who 
sustained his views, and one of the most recent ones, 
which now occurs to me, is the Forbes case. 

Mr. Dehon. Beaten, out and out! 

Mr. Whiting. Surely not! 

Mr. Deiion. Beaten in the Committee ! 

Mr. Whiting. But successful in the House by means 
of this very testimony ! 

Mr. Deiion. Mr. Webster conducted the case. 

Mr. Whiting. Then we all know very w r ell who made 
his thunder . Here is the artificer, and you were suc¬ 
cessful. 

I am informed that the letter which is contained in 
the Commissioners’ Report of 1850, and was written by 
Mr. Samuel S. Lewis, was submitted by my learned 
friend, on the other side, as testimony. I refer to the 
statement of Mr. Lewis. We all know the position of 
that gentleman. If there be a man who has taken watch¬ 
ful care of Boston Harbor, it is Mr. Lewis. If there 
is an individual known as a far-sighted, sagacious man, 
looking into the future, it is that same Mr. Lewis. 
He has been the father of many of the wisest and most 
long-headed projects which have given reputation to our 
city. He has taken care of Boston Harbor, by constantly 
watching to prevent every attempt to injure it. And al¬ 
though a reflection was cast at his disinterestedness, I think 
it will be gladly withdrawn by those who made it, when 
it is remembered that he was the means, originally, of 


57 


inducing the Commissioners to draw in their lines around 
East Boston to their present limits. In these gentlemen, 
Messrs. Parrot, Low, Fenno, Lamb, Lewis, and others, 
we have a weight of experience, judgment and science, I 
think, that no person can hesitate to pronounce as re¬ 
spectable as that produced on the other side. 

But I ask you to look at something else ; and that is 
the unanimous opinion of all the Commissioners who have 
been appointed on this subject. Every Board of Com¬ 
missioners, five of them in all, have reiterated the prin¬ 
ciples wdiich are to govern our conduct in reference to 
this subject. 

Mr. Dehon. You do not mean to say that they have 
reported against this project ? 

Mr. Whiting. I mean only what I said, that they 
have reported upon the principles which are to govern us 
in such cases. 

The report of 1835 was by Messrs. Baldwin, Thayer 
and Heywood. 


“ The harbor of Boston,” they say, “ is not an open, broad bay, sur¬ 
rounded on all sides by the sea shore, where the tide simply ebbs and flows 
with a gentle and almost imperceptible current, but it is wholly made and 
continued as channels, through which the tides ascend into immense basins 
and rivers, some of which reach many miles into the country, and from 
which the tides descend again into the ocean, and in their progress, scour 
out the channels according to the quantity and velocity of the current pro¬ 
duced by the ebb. That part on the southeast, called Fore Point Channel, 
is thus made by the tide passing into South Bay—and the harbor on the 
north side is only the channel through which the tide flows into the Charles 
and Mystic Rivers to the head of tide water, to Watertown on the first, and 
Mystic Pond on the latter. During spring tides, the current acts more 
sensibly in all these channels, as there is a greater quantity passing in the 

8 


58 


same time than in ordinary neap tides. In the latter, the usual range be¬ 
tween high and low water is about seven feet, and daring the former, the 
range is fourteen feet from high water to low. It is the channel produced 
by these alternate currents in opposite directions, in the South Bay, or the 
great reservoir of the two rivers, that constitutes all the advantages of Bos¬ 
ton harbor for commercial purposes! 

“ Boston harbor being only a channel for the tide to flow in and out of 
the great reservoir before mentioned, it may not be irrelevant to show how 
it may he suddenly or gradually destroyed , and become only a safe anchorage 
for lighter coasting craft, where the largest merchant vessels, and even 
ships of the line, now ride in deep water in perfect safety. It is obvious to 
every reflecting man, that if a dam were to be built upon the site where 
South Boston Free Bridge or South Boston Bridge now stands, and the 
tide be prevented from flowing above, Fore Point Channel would soon be 
filled with sediment, and not be distinguished from the surface of the flats 
on the southeast side. Similar effects would also result from the erection 
of dams in the places of Chelsea and Charles River Bridges. These would 
stop the tides, and as there would be no current either way, silt and sedi¬ 
ment would in a short time fill this beautiful part of the harbor, and render 
it only accessible for fishing boats. 

“ The commissioners are aware that this is putting a strong case, as no 
such dam can ever be erected without the sanction of the Legislature. But, 
what would evidently be the consequence in the course of a few years by 
the supposed dams, will as certainly be effected more gradually, and the 
ruin of the harbor be as complete at a more distant period, by cutting off 
large portions of the Charles and Mystic Rivers above the two bridges, 
either to stop the tides altogether or partially, from flowing and filling the 
extensive basins of either.” 

This board, after citing the ordinance of 1641, granting the right to the 
shore owners to extend one hundred rods, or to the channel, declare that 
“ they believe, and feel it to be their duty to state the reasons, that the full 
and equal enjoyment of the right given by this ancient law, is inconsistent 
with the existence of the harbor. An instance is presented in South Bay. 
The proprietors of the shores surrounding the flats of this basin, have a 
right to build their wharves, or solid filling, extending one hundred rods 
into or over tide water, if not interrupted by channels within that distance. 
As we do not know any legal objection to their exercising or selling this 
right, and one hundred rods in width around this basin will make a consid¬ 
erable part of its area, Fore Point Channel may be affected, and as the 


59 


South Cove Company have already filled nearly all the surface of the flats 
between the two bridges, the absolute ruin of that channel hangs upon the 
contingency, whether the ancient law is in force relative to the tide water 
in South Bay, and whether the owners will exercise their rights. The 
same effect may be produced in numerous places on the Charles and Mystic 
Rivers, by a different mode, but quite as fatal to that part of the harbor.” 

In 1839 another commission was created, consisting of H. A. S. Dear¬ 
born, James F. Baldwin, and Caleb Eddy, Esquires, to mark on the plan of 
the former commissioners such lines as they might think expedient to es¬ 
tablish, “ beyond which no wharves shall be extended.” This authority 
related only to such parts of the line as had not been adopted by the Legis¬ 
lature. Their powers being limited, they did not go extensively into the 
question of affecting the channels in the harbor by filling up the flats. They 
however admit the importance of preserving the harbor; they allow that 
certain portions of the channels have been filling up, and that it is impossi¬ 
ble to determine in advance what effects would be produced by any ob¬ 
structions being placed where the tide now flows. They say, however, 
“ It may be assumed as an important and well established element in the 
inquiry, that whatever is done that shall reduce the quantity of water that 
passes into the large estuaries and bays north, west and south of the city, 
and now covers the vast extent of shoals in other parts of the harbor, will 
have a direct tendency to create obstructions at some points in the various 
channels, while at others, the depths may be deepened.” 

But while they admit that the filling up of any portion of the flats in any 
part of the harbor may affect it injuriously, they appear to think that the 
demand for land is more pressing than for water accommodations. They 
say, “ But such is the imperiously increasing demand for greater accommo- 

? ; • • > ’ i 

dation by all the branches of the infinitely varied industry in which the ac¬ 
cumulating population of the metropolis is employed, that it is impossible 
to meet it without yielding much of mere theory, to the practical advantages 
which will be gained from the increased facilities which such encroachments 
are intended to afford.” But notwithstanding their desire to accommodate 
business by encroachments upon tide water, they say “ that the proprietors 
of land on the northern shore of South Boston, should not be allowed to 
extend wharves or other structures over the flats situated between that 
shore and the main channel which separates those flats from those of East 
Boston, Bird and Governor’s Islands, beyond the distance of one hundred 
rods, as prescribed in the Old Colony law of 1641.” 

In 1845 another commission, consisting of James Hayward and Ezra Lin- 


60 


coin, Jr., Esquires, was created. In their report, which was submitted to 
the Legislature the year following, several important facts were stated 
which have a direct bearing upon the subject before us. It appears by their 
report that the South Bay, above the old South Boston Bridge, contained, 
in 1846, 345 acres, and of this area, 250 or 300 acres were liable to be filled 
up by the shore owners ; and that contracts had then been made to fill cer¬ 
tain portions of these flats ; and we know that the work is now progressing 
—so that the day is not distant when the whole of that basin will be com¬ 
pletely filled, except the small portion which may be situated below the one 
hundred rod line. 

We also learn from this report, that by actual measurement it was found 
that the area of Mystic River above Chelsea Bridge, within its banks at low 
water, was 878 acres, and that the area of the flats and marshes covered at 
high water was 1533 acres, making 74 per cent, more of the flats and 
marshes than of the river itself; and that the area of Charles River above 
Charles River Bridge, including Miller’s River (the estuary back of East 
Cambridge) and the bay back of the State Prison, was 1340 acres—and that 
the marsh land connected with it, which was overflowed at high tide, was 
915 acres ; showing the excess of the river over the marshes and flats of 
some 35 per cent. It appears, then, from the report, that the aggregate 
area of the flats and marshes overflowed by the tides on the Mystic and 
Charles Rivers, is 2448 acres; while the rivers themselves, above the 
bridges, contain 2218 acres ; being 230 acres less of the rivers than of the 
marshes. 

The importance of this river and bay, (Charles River, and the bay 
above West Boston Bridge,) and that of the Mystic, to the preservation 
of the main channel down to the islands, is altogether incalculable. They 
are the two main arteries which literally supply the life current of Boston 
harbor. And the commissioners would respectfully recommend to the Le¬ 
gislature the preservation of these estuaries to the greatest extent that may 
be consistent with the rights of individual proprietors of bordering estates. 
If the modern construction of the colonial law of 1641, that the riparian 
proprietor has a right to exclude the tide water from the flats in front of his 
estate, to the distance of one hundred rods, if there be no intervening chan¬ 
nel, must prevail, then Boston harbor is in danger of serious injury. The 
subject is one which commends itself to the careful consideration of the 
Legislature. The whole State has an interest in it. The preservation of 
Boston as a place of trade, of commerce, of ships, is every year increasing 
in importance to the whole northern section of the country. Every part of 


61 


New England has its railroads running to this city. These have been built 
for the purposes or business of trade. They connect the interior of the 
country with the commerce of the world. But annihilate the harbor of 
Boston, and these expensive facilities for intercommunication will become 
of but little value, either to the city or the country. 

“ The building of new wharves, the extension of old ones, the filling up 
of flats to the exclusion of the tide, and consequent diversion of the currents, 
to a greater or less degree, are producing changes in the state of the harbor, 
some of them innocent, some of them more or less detrimental to the chan¬ 
nels, and some of them tending to serious consequences. Changes of this 
kind have been observed since the survey made in 1835. Some of these 
are traceable to particular causes, and tend to throw light on the general 
subject of causes and effects in relation to these changes. They all show 
the importance of having the harbor taken care of .” 

The commission of 1846 consisted of T. G. Cary, 
Simeon Borden, and Ezra Lincoln, Jr., Esquires. 

They say : “ If the whole area of flats opposite South Boston were above 

% 

the city, receiving the tide through any channels by which vessels must 
pass to reach their places of discharge, there can be no question that it 
would be extremely dangerous to the commerce of the port to enclose them. 
To exclude from such a basin a volume of water that aids to scour the chan¬ 
nel in the upper harbor, as it passes to and from the sea, four times a day, 
might produce changes of the most injurious character. The enclosure of 
the Back Bay, as it is called, by ( the Western Avenue, is an instance of this 
kind, which it would be hazardous to repeat. But the flats in question are 
below the city. The water that covers them aids in no such scouring pro¬ 
cess. That process is in fact diminished in its effects, by suffering a portion 
of the water that daily ascends as a supply for the upper basin, to flow over 
so wide a surface, instead of confining its passage to the channels.” 

The Commissioners of 1850, John M. Williams, David 
Cummings, Thos. Ilopkinson, Geo. S. Boutwell and Chs. 
Hudson, Esqs., say as follows. 

When the subject is stripped of all its disguises, and is presented in its 
naked form, we are inclined to hesitate before we pronounce in favor of 
filling up the flats over w'hich the State has control. When the safety of 
the harbor is placed in competition with any magnificent scheme of land 


G2 


speculation, we must decide in favor of what we believe to be the safety of 
the harbor. When we consider that a volume of water, of an average 
depth of at least seven feet, covering an area larger than the whole city of 
Boston proper, is now liable to be excluded from the harbor, we want some¬ 
thing more than a mere speculative theory of tides and channels, to justify 
us in adding to this quantity. When we consider that flats once filled can 
never be restored to harbor accommodations ; but that flats kept open, can, 
at any future period, be filled, when it shall have been demonstrated by ex¬ 
perience that previous fillings have wrought no injury to the harbor—we 
believe it to be the dictate of wisdom to pause before we make any further 
grants, except they be accompanied with an obligation to make correspond¬ 
ing excavations, or other improvements in the harbor. 


The Commissioners of 1851 do not discuss that sub¬ 
ject ;—that is, the preserving of the water basin above 
the bridges. 

We did intend (supposing there would be sufficient 
time,) to go more thoroughly into this branch of the tes¬ 
timony. As has been shown, the Commissioners of 1850, 
and those who preceded them, all say in substance that you 
must not fill up above Charles River and Mystic River; and 
if you do, you cause irreparable injury to Boston Harbor. 

How do the petitioners get over this difficulty, which 
(they do not deny) is sure to follow ? They ask you to 
grant them this privilege of filling up the flats upon con¬ 
dition of excavating as much as they fill up. And I wish 
simply to say to you on that subject, that excavation is 
admitted, on all hands, to be but a temporary remedy for 
an eternal evil. They do not intend to maintain any 
such excavation. The number of cubic feet which they 
would take out, is relatively nothing when compared 
to what would be filled up. Where would this excava¬ 
tion be ? It would be somewhere up country. In order 


63 


to make that excavation a permanent remedy, it must be 
maintained . 

What must we conclude as to the value of it ? We 
believe the excavation will never be made. They will 
build their wharves. The excavation will never go fur¬ 
ther than their interest dictates. They must purchase 
hundreds of acres of land to remove ; and it must be an 
area of land near the water. They must excavate such 
as they can find,—that is to say, flats and marshes which 
lie but little above low water mark ; and if they take 
this, they must excavate an enormous area in order to re¬ 
move as many cubic feet, between high and low water 
mark, as they are to fill up. Such an excavation would 
be of an enormous cost. It is not practicable for that 
reason. 

What do they intend to do, and when do they propose 
to excavate ? They have designated no time or place. 
Do they own the land which is to be devoted to en¬ 
larging the basin, and what is the estimated cost ? The 
public and the Legislature have a right to know. If a 
Railroad were asked for, and nobody knew what it would 
cost, the Legislature would have nothing to do with 
granting a charter. What are these excavations to cost ? 
Whose land is it to take ? The excavation will not be of 
permanent use, because it is admitted, on all hands, that 
it will fill up again. In five years you will be as badly 
off as if no excavation had been made. Ought not the 
Commonwealth to consider that the evil is long and the 
remedy short ? Do they offer any security that it will be 
done at all, or done any further than the private pecu- 


64 


niary interests of the petitioners demand ? I apprehend 
that if the actual expense were honestly estimated, the 
stock of the Company, unless wharves are projected into 
the channel, would not he very attractive. As Mr. 
Lewis said, “ This project of excavation is worthless.” 
It is a mere blind to the eye. 

I pass to the next topic ;—that the effects produced by 
what has been already done towards keeping out the 
tide from Boston Harbor, will lead you to the same con¬ 
clusion ; namely, that the ruin of the harbor will follow, 
if the same course is much longer continued. 

The history of the successive encroachments upon the 
tidal waters of Boston Harbor is not generally familiar to 
the members of the Legislature. The extent to which 
the natural reservoirs of the port have already been au¬ 
thorized, directly or indirectly, to be filled up, is startling. 
In order to bring these facts into a more tangible shape, 
we have caused a new map of Boston Harbor, and its 
tributary waters, to be carefully prepared. It is founded 
upon the ancient map of Hes Barres, published in 1775, 
the original of which is now in the State House Library, 
—and upon that of Bonner, made in 1720. 

The different lines drawn upon our map, show, 

1. The original extent of Boston proper in 1720, 
and also that of Charlestown, East and South Boston, &c. 

2. The extent of present filling up. 

3. The Commissioners' lines, and lines of grants of 
the Legislature to different persons and Corporations. 

4. The extent and position of channels. 


65 


5. The area and position of all the marshes and flats 
covered at high water. 

From these elements we cannot resist certain conclu¬ 
sions of the most alarming character. The result of 
careful measurement by our engineer shows that in 1776 
the area covered by water, at low tide, was 2,664 acres. 

The area of flats left bare at low tide was, 2,743 44 
44 44 marshes 44 44 44 2,735 44 

Making the total amount of water area, at 

high tide,. 8,142 44 

If the riparian proprietors fill up as far as the Commis¬ 
sioners’ lines, and the various acts of the Legislature au¬ 
thorize them to go, there will be left only 2,500 acres to 
be the water area of our entire harbor inside of Gov¬ 
ernor’s and Castle Islands at high tide ! 

If the Legislature act upon the recommendation of the 
Harbor Commissioners of 1851, and authorize the filling 
up of 500 acres more, at South Boston, there will remain 
less than 2,000 acres of water area at high tide. Three 
quarters of our harbor thus being filled up , and leaving 
one quarter part only ! and yet you remember that flats 
and marshes are just as important to the scouring of the 
harbor, as the channels,—in proportion to the water they 
maintain at high tide. 

The consequence of this, it is impossible not to foresee. 
Why, then, should you grant to private individuals that 
land which will soon be so absolutely essential for the 
future preservation of our harbor ? 

9 



66 


Let us call your attention to another aspect of these 
facts. The aggregate area of flats and marshes above 
the Charles Biver, Chelsea and South Boston Bridges, 


is. 2,448 acres. 

The channels themselves contain only 2,218 ££ 


Total, 4,666 ££ 

The riparian proprietors may generally fill up to low 
water mark, if within 100 rods, and thereby diminish 
the capacity of these receiving basins from 4,666 acres 
down to 2,218 acres, being 230 acres more than half its 
entire capacity ! And this enormous filling up will cer¬ 
tainly be done as fast as the pecuniary interests of the 
land owners will require it. 

Again, Boston proper in 1722 contained only 592 acres, 
as appears by measuring the area upon 
the map of Bonner, published in that year. 

The quantity actually hilled up at this date 

is about. 532 ££ 

The quantity now being filled is about . . 626 ££ 

Making the present size of Boston, after 

completing these fillings, 1,750 ££ 

Thus this little peninsula, planted in a land-locked 
basin, like a diamond in its setting, has grown to be 
three fold its original size. You will see to it that no 
selfish enterprise shall be allowed to dim its lustre. 

Now, Gentlemen, pause a moment to consider the con¬ 
sequences which have followed from these encroachments 
upon the tide. 





67 


Every witness has admitted, what you know full well, 

* 

that Boston Harbor is now going to ruin! —by that I 
mean that the flats are shoaling, and that the channels are 
fast filling up. 

Des Barres’ map shows that the depth of water in the 
channel off Fort Hill in 1760 was thirteen feet. It was 
in 1835 hut ten feet. Opposite the end of India Wharf, 
in 1761, the water was then thirty feet deep. It is now 
reduced in depth to thirteen feet. I heard yesterday an 
interesting circumstance in connection with Long Wharf. 
When they had to rebuild it, some twenty or thirty years 
ago, in excavating, they found soldiers’ uniforms, and 
other clothing, which had probably been thrown into the 
dock in the time of the Revolution. Some of the jackets, 
one of which contained a guinea, was found thirteen feet 
below the surface. 

Take the admission of Mr. Davis himself. He tells 
you that in eleven years Boston Harbor has been shoal¬ 
ing to such an astonishing degree, that by taking a sec¬ 
tion across from Cunard’s Wharf to Rowe’s Wharf, the 
whole water section has diminished 1,200 feet in eleven 
years ! ! And that is one seventy-second part , per annum , 
of the entire water way receiving all that passes through to 
Charles and Mystic Rivers. If this be shoaling at that 
rate, I ask you, What is to become of the Harbor of Bos¬ 
ton in sixty or seventy years ? Truly something is going 
wrong. There has been an immense acceleration of this 
destructive process since 1835 ! 

They tell you that from the earliest periods, beyond 
the memory of man, the Harbor of Boston did not shoal 


68 


materially, and that it has not done so till within the 
last thirty years. Then the same facts are shown by the 
plans of the water sections, which we have taken the 
pains to have prepared. The red lines show the water 
as it now is, and the black lines, as it was fifteen years 
ago. ' 

The testimony of these men of science, who have made 
accurate observations ; the testimony of the Commission¬ 
ers in these reports ; the testimony of those who are 
brought here as pilots, all tend to show you precisely the 
same thing. Mr. Lewis tells you a fact in regard to the 
grounding of heavy vessels. He says that heavy vessels 
cannot go in and out of the harbor readily at low T tide. 
I received a few days since a letter, w T hich I have mis¬ 
placed, from Capt. Harrison, about the grounding of the 
British steam ship Canada.* He stated.the same thing, 
in substance, to which Mr. Lewis testified ; that he 
waited until about half tide, and then set out from the 
dock. He struck twice with his vessel, drawing but 
nineteen feet of water, and remained aground at one of 
the times thirty-five minutes. 

There is another fact stated in the Commissioners’ re¬ 
port of 1851. It states that the main channel, leading 
in and out of Boston Harbor, has narrowed 500 feet with¬ 
in the last thirty years ; not by shoaling, but absolutely 
narrowing. Now I pray you to consider, Have we not 
reached , in this course of destruction , a point at which it 
is prudent to stop ? Mr. Lewis has stated to you that 


* See Appendix, Note A. 



69 


there was no dredging machine used here till the year 
1835 ; and, of course, you will see that if there had, be¬ 
fore that time, been a shoaling of the water, it had been 
so gradual as not greatly to attract the attention of the 
people. But now there are four steam dredging ma¬ 
chines in constant operation. And when this dredging 
creates such an expense, that one man has to pay $40,000 
out of his pocket for this purpose, you will see that it is 
by no means a slight evil. The effect of the deposition 
of mud and silt, is, therefore, very destructive to the 
commercial interests of Boston. 

Let me say to my distinguished adversary, [Lieut. Da¬ 
vis,] as I must call him for his earnestness in behalf of 
these petitioners, that the deposition of silt and mud has 
not yet ceased. Is it not prudent to stop in this process 
of filling up the harbor until you have seen what is to be 
the consequence of what has already been done ? It 
seems to me that a cessation in this course is indicative 
of prudence and wisdom. The largest class vessel is the 
one which is most important, in connection with the fu¬ 
ture development of our commerce. If your harbor will 
not admit vessels drawing nineteen or twenty feet, you 
cannot have those magnificent ships which are building 
in New York enter your harbor. The merchants there 
will say, “We will send our small boats to the vil¬ 
lage of Boston. Our larger vessels cannot enter their 
harbor.” We have already had a little of that talk. In 
former years the largest vessels have been able to come 
up our harbor at any time of tide, and have found them¬ 
selves safe in so doing. I ask, Mr. Chairman, Would 


70 


not you be ashamed to be obliged to admit that the 
largest class vessels could not enter Boston Harbor, and 
that those largest class vessels, drawing 24 or 25 feet of 
water, could not come in or go out at any time of tide ? 
It needs only a little more shoaling to reduce us to that 
situation. 

I had intended, but I will not trespass on the time of 
the Committee, to call your attention to the condition of 
various English harbors. I had investigated their history 
carefully. I had examined the writers referred to by Mr. 
Davis and some more recent authorities, as well as the 
opinions of Mr. John Scott Russell, who was a witness 
before several parliamentary committees. # I find, how T - 
ever, that my want of time has left me without opportu¬ 
nity. 

Yet I beg that you will look at the harbor of Ports¬ 
mouth, in England, and you will find that it has shoaled 
to such an extent that vessels of war, for whose accom¬ 
modation this particular harbor was selected, are obliged 
to take out their guns before they can cross the bar. In 
Liverpool the same thing has taken place. And I see 
also by Parliamentary Reports for 1845, p. 223, (on Tidal 
Harbors,) that the harbor of Glasgow has been injured 
the same way. The port of Dundee (Tay Harbor) is an¬ 
other. And may I mention our old namesake, Boston 
Harbor, in England, in which I have always taken some 
interest, and in whose history I have other reasons for 
being interested than those connected with this hearing. 
It has shoaled so much that the town is now, compara- 


* See xlppendix, Note B. 



71 


lively speaking, a mere village, while but a few centuries 
ago it was the third port, in point of commercial impor¬ 
tance, in England. Yet its harbor was once utterly 
ruined. The handiest reference to its history is in 
Thompson’s history of that town; and I remember, 
Mr. Chairman, that a neighbor of yours, Mr. Dean, has 
a copy of it. Chester Harbor is another instance of this 
decay and deterioration ; and it is the last of which I in¬ 
tended to speak. 

I will say nothing of all these harbors, except that they 
are illustrations of the fact, that destroying a part of the 
receiving basins has always resulted in the more or less 
complete destruction of the harbors themselves. They 
have been obliged to excavate what they had filled up, 
in order to reclaim their lost advantages. Then his¬ 
tory establishes beyond question the principle, that when 
you destroy the equilibrium which nature established 
between the capacity of the receiving basin and the 
channels, you set in motion a train of evils that usually 
results in the shoaling of those harbors. 

In concluding, I must ask your attention to some con¬ 
siderations of expediency. If - you grant these bills in 
any shape, will you not make a precedent for every per¬ 
son that wants flats in Boston Harbor to come and ask 
for them ? If you once begin, will you not find it diffi¬ 
cult to resist the claims of men asking for acres here and 
there ? Is it not better to settle the principle once for 
all ; to say that the property of Massachusetts shall not 
be given away to any body, but that the Commonwealth 
shall keep these flats ? Is it not better to wait until you 


/ 


72 


know what is to be the result of the injuries which are 
already inflicted upon our water courses ? If you grant 
the land with restrictions this day ; if you say you will 
give these petitioners a chance to fill up without wharves , 
do you not know that next year these gentlemen will 
come without their admirable witness, Lieut. Davis, who 
has admitted that wharves will ruin the petitioners’ pro¬ 
ject, but bringing here somebody who will make a hue 
and cry about wharves, and will they not get you to say 
that wharves will then be necessary ? They think they 
will take Bobadil’s system of conquering their adver¬ 
saries. They will take a little now, and a little then, 
and soon they will have all they want. 

The petitioners wish that you will give them the right 
to fill these flats without any clause specifically providing 
for excavations. Or if you do make such provision, you 
will make it a “ condition subsequent ,” to be performed after 
the title vests in the petitioners. I appeal to you to know 
whether such a condition is ever practically enforced ? 
You cannot induce the Legislature to enforce such con¬ 
ditions. If you give these flats, with a right to fill them 
up on condition that they excavate elsewhere, the title 
immediately vests in those parties. By and by you find 
they have not made their excavations. 

The Commonwealth do not get their lands back unless 
they enter for a breach of condition. And though they 
have a legal right to do that, yet when the petitioners 
have sold that land, and the title has become distributed 
among three or four hundred, or even three or four thou¬ 
sand people, I would ask if you believe Massachusetts 




73 


would ever cause that land to be forfeited to the Com¬ 
monwealth, and sell it out for the benefit of the State. 
Would such a course not raise a hue and cry that you 
would not hear the last of for many years ? Thus will 
the petitioners gain the land and ruin the harbor, and we 
must suffer the consequences. 

The only condition by which you could secure us from 
injury, is one that would be perpetually nugatory. I 
will test the petitioners’ sincerity. Propose to give them 
a lease for ninety-nine years, and that their estate in the 
premises shall end upon the non-performance of their 
contract. Say, Gentlemen, if you want these flats for 
this purpose, take a lease so that your estate shall last no 
longer than while you perform your conditions. Make 
the lease to end without the necessity of enforcing a for¬ 
feiture, and they would not fill up five inches of flats, nor 
thank you for the charter. 

I will ask you to consider another point. If you grant 
away the flats, and thus injure the harbor, will the United 
States help you out of the difficulty ? The improvement 
of this harbor, in the channel , depends upon the bounty 
of the Government of the United States. It is not likely 
to be done by public enterprise. It is the business of the 
Government. Will the Government come forward and 
save you from destruction, if you bring it upon yourselves 
by your own avarice or folly ? 

Government grants come slowly. Years of patience 
and suffering must be endured before the remedy can be, 
applied. Your commercial rivals would rejoice at this 
project. For New England and Boston depend upon our 

10 


74 


harbor. And I have no doubt that you could fill up flats 
enough to drive off the commerce of Boston ; that you 
could easily put commercial competition here at rest. 
But of one thing you may be sure. It is becoming con¬ 
tinually more difficult to get grants of the United States 
Government, because we have now South against North, 
and because we have our magnificent rivals of New York, 
who are also against us. For what do our rival mer¬ 
chants in New York want Boston to prosper ? They can¬ 
not desire it. Hence we ought not to put it out of our 
power to help ourselves. Ho not let Massachusetts part 
with the power to save herself from irreparable injury. 
Let us not depend upon grants from the General Govern¬ 
ment, to undo mischief which we may prevent being 
done. 

Finally, I have endeavored to show you what was the 
design of these parties in filling up the flats of this har¬ 
bor ; that it is against the judgment of a very large, re¬ 
spectable and honorable body of remonstrants ; that the 
claim is urged for the benefit of a few land speculators, 
whose success will add territory to Charlestown and 
money to their own pockets ; that they are seeking to 
get a grant, not under fair colors, because there is no 
public emergency for wharf accommodations or Railroad 
accommodations which cannot be supplied by those now 
in existence ; that the grant is inexpedient; because, in 
the first place, it injures commerce as it now is, and 
leaves no adequate provision for the future commerce of 
Boston ; because it narrows the channel altogether too 
much ; because it will bring mud and silt around our 


75 


wharves, and tend to add to the difficulty by filling up 
the harbor ; and because it will destroy more than ten 
times as much as it will produce ; that the flats asked 
for are the property of the Commonwealth, and worth 
$700,000 ; that they should not be given away to any 
one ; but that those persons who wish to buy, should 
have a chance, supposing the Commonwealth is deter¬ 
mined to sell ; that the Bill proposed provides no guar¬ 
antees, and cannot provide guarantees for the perform¬ 
ance of conditions which are supposed to be necessary to 
accompany these grants ; that if the flats of Boston Har¬ 
bor, of which we now speak, should be excavated, that 
it would be (as is admitted on all hands) an improve¬ 
ment ; and that it may and should be done, you have 
evidence from petitioners, and various other persons. 

The conclusion, from all the considerations presented 
at this hearing, is irresistible,—that Massachusetts should 
refuse to alienate another foot of land over which she has 
any control, if, by so doing, she diminishes the receiving 
basin which is necessary to the preservation of Boston 
Harbor. 




. 











f. 





















. 


•: , fV " 


• • 











. 





















APPENDIX. 


-♦- 

NOTE A. 

The following letter from the Captain of the British Steam Ship Canada, 
is the one alluded to in the argument. 

Boston , April lth } 1851. 

To William Whiting, Esq. 

Dear Sir—I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 4th inst. 
inquiring of me if the Steam Ship “ Canada ” grounded in leaving this port 
on her last voyage, &c. In reply, I have to say, that, according to the 
Almanac, the tide should have flowed at twenty-six minutes after one. The 
ship was detained in dock until Jive minutes after four , the Pilot not think¬ 
ing it prudent to take her down the channel until that time ; after leaving 
the dock the ship touched bottom twice, once half way between her dock 
and the Fort, and once off the Fort, where she remained about thirty-five 
minutes, drawing nineteen feet of water. In answer to your question 
whether in my opinion the channels in Boston harbor have shoaled since I 
first became acquainted with them, I do not hesitate to say in reply, I be¬ 
lieve they have shoaled over one foot since I first came to the port in the 
year 1841. 

Your obedient servant, 

J. A. Harrison. 


NOTE B. 

In confirmation of these views the following authorities are cited, to 
which reference is made. 

1st. That harbors are destroyed by injudicious reclamation of land 
covered by tide waters, proof is found in the Reports of the Harbor Com¬ 
mission of the British Government. The long list embraced in that Report 
affords ample proof of the fact. Among others, the following are cited. 
The limits of the abstract preventing full extracts from these very interest¬ 
ing cases. 

Southwold. Report of 1845, page 224. “ Area formerly covered by 

spring tides, 2,000 acres. By embankments the area was reduced to 450 
acres, less than one quarter the original area.” * * * * 




78 


The Commissioners say, “ South wold is entirely dependent upon tidal 
waters for its existence as a port, and since the value of the daily tidal scour 
in all our harbors does not seem to be sufficiently appreciated, we have en¬ 
tered into detail.” * * # * 

Rye Harbor. “ Injured by filling in marshes, and finally excluding the 
tide water. The channel destroyed from shingle outside.” (Boston har¬ 
bor may be ruined in this manner. See Commissioners Report for 1850. 
Mr. Hunt’s testimony, page 12th.) 

“ The tide broke through the embankments in 1812, and one tide scoured 
the channel so that vessels came up drawing sixteen feet of icater. £200,000 
expended in vain attempts to form a new harbor between 1724 and 1787, 
03 years. Time and money both wasted .” 

Yol XVI., same Reports, page 130. The testimony of Mr. John Scott 
Russell, conceded by the counsel for petitioners to be the best authority 
upon such matters in England. His theory of tides may be found at large 
in a report made to the British Association, 1844. See also Encyclopaedia 
Metropolitana, Article ‘Tides.’ He states briefly the following principles, in 
relation to the tide waves which fill the harbors on the flood tide. 

The ascent of the tide wave is not dependent upon the area but upon the 
depth of the water way. The tidal wave is propagated according to the 
same laws as a wave of the first order, which is, that the velocity is propor¬ 
tioned to the square root of the depth. 

The relative velocities will be as follows: 


Depth. 

Velocity. 

10 

12 

20 

16 

30 

20 

50 

26 

70 

32 

100 

34 


The greatest velocity will be gained when the channel is rectangular and 
deep. 

Question 2697. Projections from the shore retard the current and dimin¬ 
ish the quantity of water. 

2715. Chester navigation at one time admitted vessels of considerable 
size up to the city. There can be no doubt that the entire ruin of that es¬ 
tuary has been owing to the injudicious reclaiming of land to an enormous 
extent by a large company formed by an act of Parliament in the year 1750. 
The company was not promoted by the inhabitants of Chester. Provision 
was made for keeping the channels open, but were ineffectual. Spring 
tides give but nine feet six inches at Chester. Tide rises thirty-three feet 
at the bar. There might be twenty-two feet at Chester at high water. 

2730. From Ayr point upward, the largest ships formerly rode; it is 
now nearly dry. 

2731-2. I have no doubt the change has been produced by enclosing 
tidal lands under sanction of Parliament. I think no permission under any 


t 

c . < 


c t: 


79 


circumstances ought to be given to diminish the volume of water entering 
our tidal harbors. I think it should be most scrupulously maintained with 
a view of scouring the channels with as large a body of water as possible, 
and where channels are narrowed, it should be in conformity with this prin¬ 
ciple. I think it quite possible to obtain a good, deep, rectangular channel 
for the progress of the tidal wave, and still keep unimpaired the whole lateral 
area for the reception of the tidal water to produce the scour. 

2737. The object aimed at in rivers w hich depend upon the tide, is, to 
prevent as much as possible any diminution of the tidal w'aters. 

2740. Where I consider the river to be the effect of the tide, my object 
has been to prevent as far as possible any diminution of the tidal waters 
between high and low water. Deepening below low water has no effect 
in increasing the quantity of tidal water. 

2742. The chief obstructions to the progress of the tide, are, irregular 
widths and contracted channels. Shoals, also, but if under low water not to 
the same extent. 

2748. In all cases keep the banks as wide as possible where the tide 
flows, but to have them uniform if possible, particularly when the river de¬ 
pends upon land floods. 

Vol. XVIII., page 10. Port of Chester is a notable instance of injury 
from reclaiming land. Original w r aste area, 12,000 acres. 8,000 were en¬ 
closed, and the harbor ruined. 

Same, page 302. Sir John Bennie. The preservation of the sectional 
areas of all channels, depends upon the quantity of water passing through 
them. Same principle, page 329. 

Page 447. Mr. Hodskinson upon Wells Harbor. The navigation was 
good until embankments were made. 6G0 acres were enclosed sixty years 
ago, other portions at times subsequent ; in all, 846 acres; one-third of the 
whole area. And are in my opinion the sole cause of the obstructions 
formed in the harbor. 

McCullogh’s Geographical Dictionary, page 418. Boston , England. 
6,300 acres of fens were cut off from the tide, and in thirty years , from 1721 
to 1751, the consequence w 7 as as follows : In 1721, vessels of 250 tons dis¬ 
charged at the town. In 1751, vessels drawing six feet only could not 
come up except at Spring tides. 

Parliamentary Report. Vol. XVIII., page 464. Great caution is neces¬ 
sary in the practice, so as to avoid any diminution of the area of these 
flats, which are the vital parts of such a harbor as this. 

Mr. Telford. Page 472. Blakney harbor could once shelter 400 vessels, 
now not more than fifty, in consequence of reclaiming land. 

Page 494. Many harbors have been ruined in consequence of the perni¬ 
cious habit of embanking marshes from the sea. 

Vol. XVIII., page 497. John Rennie. I have entered thus far into the 
nature of harbors similarly situated as that of Great Yarmouth, for the pur¬ 
pose of showing the advantages that arise from preserving to the utmost ex¬ 
tent the receptacles into which the tide flow's. 


80 


Vol. XVIII., page 632, same Reports. H. T. de la Beche. “ The ex¬ 
isting state of any estuary or tidal river, may be considered as an adjustment 
for the time, of certain conditions ; changes in any of which conditions ef¬ 
fect alterations in that state, productive of injury or benefit to the purposes 
for which we employ or may be desirous of employing such estuary, accord¬ 
ing to circumstances.” * * * * 

Page 633. Such are the variable conditions existing in estuaries. It 
becomes of tbe utmost importance well to study and reflect upon the value 
of each cause before we attempt changes in connection with an estuary, in¬ 
tended for our advantage, and the more especially when a great commercial 
port is situated on part of such estuary. * * * * 

Viewing the estuary as a whole , and the effects produced by changes upon 
the two tides. That which may appear of very little importance should be 
considered as, to a certain extent, producing general results. 

634. In all changes, care should be taken that the total effective volume 
remains the same. 

A provision usually considered when improvements in estuaries are under 
investigation. 

Sudden widening of channel lowered the surface of water one foot. 
Parliamentary Reports , Vol. XXII., p. 461. 

John Scott Russell. Variable wddths check the tide wave. Same, p. 461. 

Increased width at mouth approved of. Same, p. 473. 

Increase of the volume of water is an essential condition in making harbor 
improvements. Same, p. 464, 473. 

Reference is also made to a late work, by H. T. de la Beche, upon Ge¬ 
ology, stating generally the same principles here laid down. To the En¬ 
cyclopaedia Britannica, Article, Rivers and Harbors. To Du Buat and 
D’Aubenon’s Treatise upon Hydraulics, in relation to the importance of 
regular channels for the preservation of the greatest flow of water, and 
the loss consequent upon contractions and expansions. 


K? Some of the petitioners have been styled “ speculators,” in the fore¬ 
going remarks. This phrase is intended not in any offensive sense, but as 
a deserved compliment to their wealth, sagacity and enterprise. 

The counsel for the remonstrants desire to express their obligations 
to William P. Parrott, Esq., an eminent civil engineer of this city, for his 
valuable assistance in the preparation of this case, and in the scientific in¬ 
vestigations of various questions relating to hydraulics. 


Erratum.— On the inside title page, “ Monday” should read Thursday. 









* 



































■I i a |9 

■ 













































; liiMlihl umi 




llvi'.iUiftiiiljiiiJtiJifiirrtiltiiti 


















































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































